Native to Europe and Asia, cheatgrass is an invasive species of grass that is causing problems in North American fields. The plant quickly dominates fields that it has invaded and drives out other plants. This can cause, among other problems, severe damage to animal habitats and to scenic areas Several solutions to the cheatgrass problem have been proposed by ecologists.
One option is to encourage animals such as cattle to feed on cheatgrass. Cattle and other livestock are known as grazers because they graze, or eat, small portions of grass or other plants throughout the day. If grazers were released in fields where cheatgrass is prevalent, the cheatgrass would be reduced.That would create room for native species to reestablish themselves and flourish. This plan is appealing because cheatgrass is most prevalent in areas of North America where cattle and other livestock are raised.
Another option is to burn the cheatgrass off the fields with controlled fires. This plan has the advantage of eliminating vast amounts of cheatgrass in a short time. Cheatgrass, it turns out, is a highly flammable plant: it burns much more easily than the native plant species that have been crwded out. Strategically set fires could burn away the cheatgrass where it has come to dominate, creating space so the newly cleared fields could be reseeded with native grasses and other plants.
Still another option is to introduce a fungal parasite that specifically attacks cheatgrass. In Europe and Asia,where cheatgrass is a native species, there is a species of fungus that has the ability to prevent cheatgrass from reproducing. Introducing this fungus in North American fields where cheatgrass has proliferated could slow the spread of cheatgrass, making it possible for native species to better compete against cheatgrass.
In the reading material, the author cites three solutions to eliminate cheargrass, which invades America and causes many problems. Nevertheless, the lecturer in the listening material argues that all these 3 solutions will not work very well.
Firstly, the author proposes that encouraging cattle is helpful because cattle would eat cheatgrass to make much room for native species to reestablish. However, the lecturer offers an opposite stand that it will backfire. This is because Cattle is a kind of animal that prefers other plants rather than cheatgrass. It is true that Cattle will eat some cheatgrass, however, Cattle is more likely to eat it after it consumes up native species, making the native spices fewer and fewer.
In addition, the lecturer casts doubt on the author’s another reason that controlled fires can extirpate cheatgrass, creating space for native plants’ seeds to germinate. He demonstrates that cheatgrass will come back although it is destroyed initially. This is because cheatgrass has a wealth of seeds, distributing them randomly. Some of them are pushed down underground. Under this circumstance, fires can burn away the surfacing cheatgrass and its seeds, but it do no harm to the seeds below. After few years, these seeds will sprout out and occupy this field again.
Finally, the author’s third reason that introducing fungal parasite which specifically attacks cheatgrass helps to slow down the spread of cheatgrass, is also counteracted by the lecturer who points out that this solution will fail. Given the fact that after living together for many years cheatgrass has developed resistance to this fungal parasite, the fungal parasite will only be detrimental for some weaken cheatgrass. While other strong and healthy cheatgrass will still resist its attack, making this solution inefficient.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 467, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'does'?
Suggestion: does
...facing cheatgrass and its seeds, but it do no harm to the seeds below. After few y...
^^
Line 7, column 285, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
...act that after living together for many years cheatgrass has developed resistance to ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, nevertheless, so, still, third, well, while, in addition, kind of, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1560.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 287.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.43554006969 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11595363751 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76268610819 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 145.348785872 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.581881533101 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 454.5 419.366225166 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.414221984 49.2860985944 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.0 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1333333333 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.4 7.06452816374 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.18040792232 0.272083759551 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0623771697718 0.0996497079465 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0420655914538 0.0662205650399 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100015586041 0.162205337803 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0342795171442 0.0443174109184 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.2367328918 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.6 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.