Because of climate change, more and more land that was once used to grow crops or provide food for animals is turning to dry, unusable desert land. There are many proposals about how to stop this process, known as desertification. A number of proposals involve growing trees, because trees can help protect soil and provide many other benefits to fight against desertification. Some scientists have proposed that the best way to grow trees in dry areas in danger of desertification is by using a box-shaped device surrounding the young tree. The device collects water that condenses from vapor in the atmosphere and helps the tree to grow. However, other scientists believe that this device will not be successful in fighting against desertification for the following reasons.
First, at a cost of 25 U S. dollars each, the device would make growing trees a prohibitively expensive process. Meaningful efforts to fight desertification involve growing millions of trees. Some countries most affected by desertification cannot afford to buy devices for millions of trees
Second, plans for fighting desertification involve asking local people to install and maintain the devices. People living in some of the areas most affected by desertification work long days in harsh conditions: sometimes barely managing to provide food for their families. It would be difficult to motivate these people to look after trees that cannot serve as a source of food for them.
Third, the device's ability to collect and conserve water is limited. Each one provides only enough water to keep a small tree alive. Trees that have outgrown the device have to deal with unforgiving environmental conditions on their own. In some places where the devices are being tried, six months can pass without a drop of rain. Once the trees become too big for the device, they may not be able to survive in such a harsh environment.
The text and the lecture are both relating to the use of box-shaped devices in order to address the disertification challenge. While the writer of the passage feels there are some prominent problems in exploiting those devices, the professor dimisses the reasons made in the text. She believes those equipments are worthwhile to be employed against the desertification issue.
To begin with, both argue the cost of devices. The author claims that they are expensive to be used widely in order to be effective. Conversely, the lecturer refutes this statement. She explains that each device can be reused, so the price must be divided to the times they are going to be emplyed for several trees. As a result, it is clearly reasonable to think about them as a not costly solution.
Secondly, the writer put forth the notion that people who should use those instruments are struggling with food scarcity, thus it is impossible to encourage them to care for trees, which can not produce any food for them. On contrary, the professor disputes this explanation as well. She goes on to describe that those devices can be used for accumulating the water for other plants, such as vegetables.In addition, the branches of the trees after growing could also be employed for fire works. Obviously, peope can be motivated by those mentioned advantages.
The last point in the reading is that, the writer thinks that those devices can only be helpful for small trees. They will lose their effectiveness when trees have gorwn big. However, the woman in the lecture rejects this statement too. She underscores that trees can survive even after the removal of devices. The reason is that they have long-grown roots underground than can contribute to their survival. She also points out a real case that trees have continued surviving after two years of the time the devices have been taken out.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 403, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: In
...er for other plants, such as vegetables.In addition, the branches of the trees aft...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, however, if, second, secondly, so, thus, well, while, in addition, such as, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 10.4613686534 201% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 1.0 7.30242825607 14% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 22.412803532 152% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1564.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 316.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94936708861 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21620550194 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65677326085 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.572784810127 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 486.9 419.366225166 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.9498513944 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.8888888889 110.228320801 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5555555556 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.94444444444 7.06452816374 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0690332952675 0.272083759551 25% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0222605706342 0.0996497079465 22% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0232654961761 0.0662205650399 35% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0440409267429 0.162205337803 27% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0301113864119 0.0443174109184 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 13.3589403974 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.13 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.