The author provides three ways to resist the spread of P. ramorum. In contrast, the professor casts doubt on all of the measures because she believes that none of them are convincing or practical.
First of all, the reading passage claims that through inhibiting human-assisted spread, the spread of the tiny bacteria can be resisted. In contrast, the lecturer argues this point by the fact that the microscopic fungus can also spread out in natural ways.
Second, the article suggests that several fungicidal chemicals are promised drug to reduce the infection of P. ramourm in oak trees. However, the speaker refutes this argument because of the effective duration of drugs is not sufficient. Although chemical injection can help a small number of oak trees for a few months, it is not a practical solution for long-term and comprehensive protection.
The last point of view proposed by the reading material is that P. ramorum can be eliminated through clear-cutting, one method that kills the infected trees, including healthy vegetation surrounded regardless of species. Nonetheless, the professor seriously refutes clear-cutting because this measure also destroys rare plants that play critical roles in the ecosystem. Hence, the dangers of elimination of the species outnumber the benefits.
Essay topics
Votes
Essay reference notes: This topic is refereed from another essay topic, developed by user: paras2
Essay Categories
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 110, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
... contrast, the professor casts doubt on all of the measures because she believes that none...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 275, Rule ID: SMALL_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, use 'a few', or use 'some'
Suggestion: a few; some
...t. Although chemical injection can help a small number of oak trees for a few months, it is not a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, hence, however, nonetheless, second, so, in contrast, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1097.0 1373.03311258 80% => OK
No of words: 203.0 270.72406181 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.4039408867 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.77462671648 4.04702891845 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92395137031 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 131.0 145.348785872 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.645320197044 0.540411800872 119% => OK
syllable_count: 325.8 419.366225166 78% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.4335981488 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.4166666667 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.9166666667 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.58333333333 7.06452816374 93% => 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 : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
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: 0.101954845319 0.272083759551 37% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0319630845229 0.0996497079465 32% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0485077822828 0.0662205650399 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0599133603475 0.162205337803 37% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0511597971848 0.0443174109184 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.74 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.56 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.