summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they challenge cheatgrass made in the reading passage.
In the reading passage, the author discusses several solutions that could solve cheatgrass problem, while the lecture claims that what the passage state is not convincing and disputes those ideas presented in the passage with several proofs.
Firstly, according to the reading passage, it is suggested that one option is to encourage animals such as cattle to feed on cheatgrass so that it could create room for native species to reestablish themselves and flourish. In contrast, the professor argues in the lecture that most grazers would not like to eat cheatgrass. They would rather eat other plants like native species. In this case, native species would be destroyed and their population would decrease. As a result, grazers will bring the opposite effect.
In addition, the statement in the reading materials indicates that another option is to burn the cheatgrass off the fields with controlled fires. On the contrary, the professor points out that the fire could eliminate cheatgrass that live on the ground. Many seeds would grow down the surface. And after a few years, those seeds would spread to other places and grow new cheatgrass.
Finally, the author of the reading claims that the third option is to introduce a fungal parasite that specifically attacks cheatgrass. However, the speaker argues that this option may not be effective enough. After living together for many years, cheatgrass already cultivate an ability to resist fungal. Some weak cheatgrass will die for a short period of time. But some strong cheatgrass that resistant to fungal would live longer.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 348, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...me weak cheatgrass will die for a short period of time. But some strong cheatgrass that resist...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, so, third, while, in addition, in contrast, such as, as a result, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1330.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 255.0 270.72406181 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21568627451 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99608801488 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54032907682 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 145.348785872 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.541176470588 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 389.7 419.366225166 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 57.7286372224 49.2860985944 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.6666666667 110.228320801 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.6 7.06452816374 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 0.167892979117 0.272083759551 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0536315200154 0.0996497079465 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.03322015205 0.0662205650399 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103716312931 0.162205337803 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.017433652839 0.0443174109184 39% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.7 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 10.7273730684 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.