Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they castdoubt onthe specific methods proposed in the reading passage.
This passage raises several methods to reduce the amount of cheatgrass. However, none of them are convinced by the lecture.
Firstly, the lecture refutes the idea in the passage that we can encourage livestock to feed on cheatgrass to reestablish native species. It argues that livestock prefers other kinds of plants rather than cheatgrass. Although they feed on cheatgrass, they eat cheatgrass only after native grass has been destroyed. Therefore, we will obtain the opposite effect in this way.
The second measure, that we can burn the cheatgrass off since it is highly flammable is rejected by the lecturer. Secondly, the passage purposes that we can burn the cheatgrass off since it is highly flammable, while the lecture holds an opposite view. The lecture contends that fire cannot harm the seeds buried below the surface. Considering these seeds can germinate after being buried for several years, cheatgrass will soon come back after we set fires.
The last point in the passage is also challenged by the lecture. The passage suggests introducing a fungus that specifically attacks cheatgrass from where cheatgrass is a native species. The lecture disagrees with this suggestion by pointing out that cheatgrass has developed resistance against the fungus since they have lived together in native habitats for a long period of time. This fungus will only harm cheatgrass which has already been weak. Therefore, we cannot reduce cheatgrass in this way.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 188, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...m where cheatgrass is a native species. The lecture disagrees with this suggestion ...
^^^
Line 7, column 367, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...d together in native habitat for a long period of time. This fungus will only harm cheatgrass ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 0.0 7.30242825607 0% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => 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: 1109.0 1373.03311258 81% => OK
No of words: 207.0 270.72406181 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.35748792271 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.79308509922 4.04702891845 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61046638776 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 116.0 145.348785872 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.56038647343 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 333.9 419.366225166 80% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.6687618521 49.2860985944 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 79.2142857143 110.228320801 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.7857142857 21.698381199 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.21428571429 7.06452816374 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => 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: 0.115172591955 0.272083759551 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0465782884608 0.0996497079465 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0402073372921 0.0662205650399 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0763487899341 0.162205337803 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0170401510704 0.0443174109184 38% => 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: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.27 53.8541721854 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.8 11.0289183223 80% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.22 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 48.0 63.6247240618 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 5.0 10.7273730684 47% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.