Every year, forest fires and severe storms cause a great deal of damage to forests in the northwestern United States. One way of dealing with aftermath of these disasters is called salvage logging, which is the practice of removing dead trees from affected areas and using the wood for lumber, plywood, and other wood products. There are several reasons why salvage logging is beneficial both to a damaged forest and to the economy.
First, after a devastating fire, forests are choked with dead trees. If the trees are not removed, they will take years to decompose; in the meantime, no new trees can grow in the cramped spaces. Salvage logging, however, removes the remains of dead trees and makes room for fresh growth immediately, which is likely to help forest areas recover from the disaster.
Also, dead trees do more than just take up space. Decaying wood is highly suitable habitat for insects such as the spruce bark beetle, which in large numbers can damage live, healthy spruce trees. So by removing rotting wood, salvage logging helps minimize the dangers of insect infestation, thus contributing to the health of the forest.
Third and last, salvage logging has economic benefits. Many industries depend upon the forests for their production, and because of this a fire can have a very harmful effect on the economy. Often, however, the trees that have been damaged by natural disasters still can provide much wood that is usable by industries. Furthermore, salvage logging requires more workers than traditional logging operations do, and so it helps create additional jobs for local residents.
Both the article and the lecture discuss the benefits of salvage logging, which defines as the removing rotting woods from forest. The article suggested that there are three main pros of salvage logging. The lecturer, on the other hand, debated the claims made by the article and stated that salvage logging will cause a downfall of the ecosystem.
To begin with, the writer of article pointed out that salvage logging will provide more space for the new trees to grow. However, the lecturer argued that removing the remains of dead trees may not necessary create proper and right conditions for young trees to grow. Moreover, the speaker stated emphasized that the decomposition of dead trees will enrich the soil with nutrients which are necessary for trees' growth.
Secondly, the article claimed that salvage logging will eliminate the problem of insect infestation. He illustrated this point by mentioning that dead trees are the best habitat for insects. In contrast, the lecturer responded that some insects like bark beetle do not cause any damage in the ecosystem. She added that dead trees provide suitable habitat for other animals, such as birds and other beneficial insects.
Finally, the author of the article pointed out that salvage logging would create job opportunities and boost the economy. The lecturer casted doubt on this claim. She mentioned that the economic benefit is small compared to the damage that might be happened due to salvage logging. Furthermore, she mentioned that the jobs created from salvage logging are temporary.
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, furthermore, however, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, in contrast, such as, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1313.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 251.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.23107569721 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98032404683 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42132764701 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 132.0 145.348785872 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.525896414343 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 398.7 419.366225166 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.5728088015 49.2860985944 60% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.7857142857 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9285714286 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.71428571429 7.06452816374 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.201598261192 0.272083759551 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0726179136366 0.0996497079465 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0411011775183 0.0662205650399 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124506471013 0.162205337803 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.033035839134 0.0443174109184 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, furthermore, however, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, in contrast, such as, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1313.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 251.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.23107569721 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98032404683 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42132764701 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 132.0 145.348785872 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.525896414343 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 398.7 419.366225166 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.5728088015 49.2860985944 60% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.7857142857 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9285714286 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.71428571429 7.06452816374 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.201598261192 0.272083759551 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0726179136366 0.0996497079465 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0411011775183 0.0662205650399 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124506471013 0.162205337803 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.033035839134 0.0443174109184 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.