claims about salvage logging
The reading passage claims that salvage logging is beneficial both damage forest and to the economy after storms and destruction to the forests. However, the professor in the lecture casts doubt on the points made in the reading.
First, considering the article after a devastating fire or any damage forests are choked with dead trees and in this situation, they don't allow new plants to grow. The writer thinks that removes the remains of dead trees help to make room for fresh growth. In contrast, the professor contradicts the idea and further explains that these kinds of remains are so necessary for soil to become nutritious and lack of enough nutritious things in soil capture chance of growing new trees.
Secondly, the reading passage claims that decaying wood is a highly suitable habitat for insects and large number of them damage live trees. Admittedly, the speaker justified the information presented in the article and makes the point that in another view bugs are so important for immediatly decomposition process and also are delicious food for other species like birds.
Third, the reading passage puts forward the idea that salvage logging has economical benefits in producing much wood for industries and also providing additional jobs. In the same way, the professor validates the idea and adds that natural disasters are rare and using damaged forests is so expensive and needs modern tools like a helicopter. Moreover, additional jobs are temporary.
In light of the above mentioned the writer and speaker both have a conflicting view about salvage logging.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 134, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... dead trees and in this situation, they dont allow new plants to grow. The writer th...
^^^^
Line 7, column 75, Rule ID: ECONOMICAL_ECONOMIC[1]
Message: Did you mean 'economic' (=connected with economy)?
Suggestion: economic
...rward the idea that salvage logging has economical benefits in producing much wood for ind...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, third, in contrast, in the same way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 22.412803532 49% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1337.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 257.0 270.72406181 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20233463035 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00390054096 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56051824646 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.579766536965 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 409.5 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.1238300325 49.2860985944 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.545454545 110.228320801 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3636363636 21.698381199 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.45454545455 7.06452816374 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.165670888069 0.272083759551 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0591130807272 0.0996497079465 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0899161804044 0.0662205650399 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102643636165 0.162205337803 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0799388001616 0.0443174109184 180% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.3589403974 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.