TPO14
The reading passage deals with the issue of whether salvage logging is beneficial to the damaged forest as well as the economy. The professor's talk focuses on the same topic. However, she believes that none of the reasons stated in the reading are convincing. And in the lecture, the professor makes three specific points to back up her point of view.
In the first place, even though the reading passage suggests that dead trees will prevent new trees from growing, the professor claims that this reason is groundless because the decomposition product of those dead trees can rich the soil with nutrients needed for the growth of new trees. Apparently, the professor's argument disproves its counterpart in the reading.
In the second place, contrary to the statement in the reading that insects which inhabit dead trees can damage new, healthy trees, the professor argues that it turns out to be inadequate. Then she supports this point with the fact that those trees lived there for almost a hundred years without providing damage to new trees; and in the long run, salvage logging will do more harm to the forest than insects.
Further, the author of the reading asserts that salvage logging can benefit the whole economy while the professor illustrates that this claim is unwarranted by pointing out that in order to do salvage logging, people have to use helicopters or other vehicles whose cost can be way too high than the benefits of salvage logging. Besides, jobs made by salvage logging will be taken up more by outsiders than by local residents.
To sum up, the professor precisely discovers the flaws in the reading passage and successfully reveals that the arguments made in the passage are incorrect.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 306, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...he growth of new trees. Apparently, the professors argument disproves its counterpart in t...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, besides, first, however, if, second, so, then, well, while, as well as, to sum up, in the first place, in the second place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => 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: 1439.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 288.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99652777778 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47767569156 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552083333333 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 429.3 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 21.2450331126 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 87.2669505664 49.2860985944 177% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.818181818 110.228320801 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.1818181818 21.698381199 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.1818181818 7.06452816374 172% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.342516163156 0.272083759551 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.118460107078 0.0996497079465 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.106706307613 0.0662205650399 161% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176611114117 0.162205337803 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.105064538806 0.0443174109184 237% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 13.3589403974 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.43 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.498013245 118% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.