tpo 23
Populations of the yellow cedar, a species of tree that is common in northwestern North America, have been steadily declining for more than a century now, since about 1880. Scientists have advanced several hypotheses to explain this decline.
One hypothesis is that the yellow cedar decline may be caused by insect parasites, specifically the cedar bark beetle. This beetle is known to attack cedar trees; the beetle larvae eat the wood. There have been recorded instances of sustained beetle attacks overwhelming and killing yellow cedars, so this insect is a good candidate for the cause of the tree’s decline.
A second hypothesis attributes the decline to brown bears. Bears sometimes claw at the cedars in order to eat the tree bark, which has a high sugar content. In fact, the cedar bark can contain as much sugar as the wild berries that are a staple of the bears’ diet. Although the bears’ clawing is unlikely to destroy trees by itself, their aggressive feeding habits may critically weaken enough trees to be responsible for the decline.
The third hypothesis states that gradual changes of climate may be to blame. Over the last hundred years, the patterns of seasonal as well as day-to-day temperatures have changed in northwestern North America. These changes have affected the root systems of the yellow cedar trees: the fine surface roots now start growing in the late winter rather than in the early spring. The change in the timing of root growth may have significant consequences. Growing roots are sensitive and are therefore likely to suffer damage from partial freezing on cold winter nights. This frozen root damage may be capable of undermining the health of the whole tree, eventually killing it.
The reading and lecture are both about yellow cedar which is drastically declined since 1880. The author of the reading feels that there are several reasons for this decline and presents some aspect. The lecturer challenged the claim made by the author. He is on the opinion that unfortunately, we do not know the cause and none of the reasons is adequate.
To begin with, the author argues that some insects like beetle eat the yellow cedar and lay eggs inside of the wood. He also states that beetle is one of the causes of declination. The specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He mentions that healthy yellow cedar is resistance and unlikely suffers by the beetle. He also elaborates by mentioning that beetle attack the died tree that already dead.
Secondly, the author suggests that bears eat the sugar content of the tree bark and sometimes damage the tree with the claw. He also claims that this aggressive behave might damage the tree. The lecturer rebuts this by mentioning that bear might damage some of the trees but not the overall reason to decrease. He also additionally says in northwestern North America may be the cause of the bear but in other regions the tree also declines. Thus, the bear is not the main cause.
Third, the author posits that due to the climate change root system of the yellow cedar start growing in the late winter. He also mentions that as a result, the root suffers from freezing and causing harm to the tree. In contrast, the lecturer position is that reading passage forgets to account some fact. He also adds that in the lower elevation where the tree dies climate is cold and higher elevation where the climate is warm. But, in this warm area trees are more declining. Thus, it is not the actual cause.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 201, 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.
... this decline and presents some aspect. The lecturer challenged the claim made by t...
^^^
Line 7, column 254, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...is by mentioning that bear might damage some of the trees but not the overall reason to dec...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, may, second, secondly, so, third, thus, in contrast, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1460.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 310.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.70967741935 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.29757144554 2.5805825403 89% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493548387097 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 451.8 419.366225166 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 3.25607064018 307% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.46292829 49.2860985944 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 73.0 110.228320801 66% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.5 21.698381199 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.7 7.06452816374 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 4.45695364238 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.324989443421 0.272083759551 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0959368481418 0.0996497079465 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0700613598698 0.0662205650399 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192896615204 0.162205337803 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.048196399989 0.0443174109184 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.5 13.3589403974 64% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 53.8541721854 120% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 11.0289183223 73% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.74 12.2367328918 80% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.39 8.42419426049 88% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.