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 crowded out. Strategically set fires could bum 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.
Both the article and the lecture talk about the possible solutions to eliminate the spreading of cheatgrass. The author of the article suggested three possible solutions that might solve the problem. The lecturer, on the other hand, stressed that the methods suggested in the article are not likely to work effectively.
To begin with, the article stated that the first method can be used to reduce the growth of cheatgrass is encouraging livestock feed on the cheatgrass. However, The lecturer argued that grazers do not prefer cheatgrass. Furthermore, he pointed that grazers will eat the other kinds of grass first, leaving behind cheatgrass. According to the lecturer, this method might have opposite effect.
Moreover, the article claimed that using fire might deter the growth of cheatgrass. The article states that fire should be under control to obtain the desirable effect. In contrast, the lecturer responded that fire will just remove the cheatgrass from the soil surface. He added that cheatgrass usually produce many seeds that push down below the surface, therefore fire cannot harm the seeds of cheatgrass.
Finally, the author of the article pointed that fungal parasite can be used to eliminate cheatgrass. The article suggested that fungal specifically attack cheatgrass. Whereas, the lecturer claimed that fungal parasite and cheatgrass have been living together for long time. He stated that cheatgrass formed a type of resistance against fungal. Therefore, only weak and sick cheatgrass can be harmed by fungal parasite.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, so, therefore, whereas, in contrast, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1308.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 241.0 270.72406181 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.42738589212 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94007293032 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63798618118 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 124.0 145.348785872 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.514522821577 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 388.8 419.366225166 93% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => 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: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 24.7846190963 49.2860985944 50% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 81.75 110.228320801 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.0625 21.698381199 69% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.5625 7.06452816374 107% => 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 : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.103914519595 0.272083759551 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0398440124499 0.0996497079465 40% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0215229144551 0.0662205650399 33% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0685412575129 0.162205337803 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0237610942923 0.0443174109184 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 53.8541721854 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.62 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.0 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.