The reading and the lecture are both about cheatgrass, which is an invasive and aggressive type of grass. While the author of the reading passage proposes several methods to prevent cheatgrass from spreading in North America, the professor states that none of the methods seem likely to do so. The lecturer casts doubt on the main points mentioned in the article by providing three controversial reasons.
In the reading, the writer begins by saying that using cattle and other livestock, which are grazer animals, might be effective since they forage on cheatgrass and eradicate them. However, the professor repudiates this idea. He asserts that cheatgrass is not a favorite food for grazers. If grazers are introduced to an area in which both cheatgrass and other grass and plants are available, the grazers will eat different types of plants first. Consequently, the whole plan of fighting against cheatgrass is defeated, and there will be even fewer plants than before.
Furthermore, according to the reading passage, cheatgrass is flammable, and using controlled fire can put to their end. On the other hand, the lecturer points out that cheatgrass spreads too many seeds, many of which are buried below the surface. Fire cannot harm those seeds, and they will germinate and give rise to new cheatgrass in the future. Therefore, fire is not a reasonable solution.
Finally, the writer believes that a specific fungus known as the enemy of cheatgrass can be utilized in order to decimate cheatgrass. Not surprisingly, the professor refutes this assertion by contending that fungus is only effective on those cheatgrasses that are feeble or sick. Healthy cheatgrass is resistant to fungus. Accordingly, this method is not efficacious.
To sum up, both the lecturer and the writer hold conflicting views on effective methods to fight cheatgrass.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, consequently, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, so, therefore, while, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => 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: 1563.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 297.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26262626263 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80275071658 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.558922558923 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 468.0 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.3718202867 49.2860985944 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.9411764706 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4705882353 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06452816374 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.174940478591 0.272083759551 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0538947572107 0.0996497079465 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0417805283719 0.0662205650399 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0876340504559 0.162205337803 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0449325903753 0.0443174109184 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.93 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.57 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.