using international funding to protect world's forest
The listening lecture totally opposes to the reading passage in the topic of using international funding to protect world's forest. First of all, the reading says that international funding can protect forest agriculture. However, the listening argues that agricultures is a disrupting force. Many farmers are using some harmful things such as fertilisers or pesticides, which is extremely harmful to the environment. As a result, fertilisers and pesticides can cause water pollution and can lead the result of declining numbers of tree. Indeed, the problem is the use of harmful elements instead of using international funding to develop new techniques, so this idea is unconvincing.
Secondly, the reading suggests that international funding can develop the economies of villages located in forest area. On the other hand, the listening asserts that the money from the international funding will go straight to the forest owner instead of the government, and since most of the forest owner do not related to the government, the international funding will not improve the economies of villages in forest area. In other word, if the government did not receive any money from the international funding, how can they have money to improve the economy?
Last but not least, the reading implies that international funding can help government or people to establish protected forest areas to maintain forest biodiversity. However, the listening indicates that this is not likely to happen. When people receive money, most of them will plant trees that are beneficial to them. Therefore, it is not likely to increase the biodiversity of tree species. To say it differently, people will only plant certain species of tree that is beneficial for them, so the diversity of trees will not increase.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-08-19 | talelaldabous | 75 | view |
| 2020-06-10 | Seyed Armin Mirhosseini | 80 | view |
| 2019-05-13 | paris.alaei@gmail.com | 78 | view |
| 2019-01-11 | Steven Huang | 60 | view |
- pikas 73
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement The government should provide people with the free internet access 81
- Should children spend most of the time playing and studying or they should be required to help the family with household chores, like cooking and cleaning. 70
- antagosire 3
- TED 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, as to, such as, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1510.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 284.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31690140845 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97662486321 2.5805825403 115% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 145.348785872 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.485915492958 0.540411800872 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 471.6 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.7107495381 49.2860985944 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.857142857 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2857142857 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.42857142857 7.06452816374 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 4.09492273731 73% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.374574912194 0.272083759551 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.132019980737 0.0996497079465 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.151625738936 0.0662205650399 229% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.246252812184 0.162205337803 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.10799219983 0.0443174109184 244% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 53.8541721854 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.13 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted. The correct pattern:
para 1: introduction
para 2: doubt 1
para 3: doubt 2
para 4: doubt 3
Less contents wanted from the reading passages(25%), more content wanted from the lecture (75%).
Don't need a conclusion paragraph.
Read sample essays from ETS:
http://www.testbig.com/users/toeflwritingmaster
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.