The world’s forests are facing increasing pressure which, if left unchecked, will threaten the health of many industries, economies, nations, and lives. The development of an international fund to help developing countries implement useful conservation techniques in forest protection is the best way to protect the world’s forests and hopefully reverse negative trends that imperil our forests. Using the internationally established forest protection fund to protect forest agriculture is perhaps the most important initiative. Dispersing these funds to governments, land owners, and farmers will allow them to resist intrusions by the logging industry, oil companies, and property developers who are after their land. This is a very specific initiative that will help agricultural areas from being developed into environmentally damaging industries and ensure that agricultural farm use is uninterrupted. A second use of this protection fund could be used to develop the economies of villages and tribal communities located in forest areas. By parceling out funds to provide villagers and tribal residents of forests with a stipend will help these people continue their way of life and resist pressure to convert their forest land to the above mentioned industries. Providing living stipends and other financial aid to forest residents will help people afford education, health services, and nutritional aid so that they are less tempted to resort to destructive or exploitative forest practices to make a living. Much of the global concern with deforestation focuses on the alarming loss of biodiversity. Humans use thousands of species of plants and animals on a daily basis for food, shelter, clothing and medicinal needs. Deforestation threatens species that humans rely on for these essential services. Using the international fund to help governments and people establish protected forest areas is the best way to maintain valuable forest biodiversity and protect species from exploitation, endangerment and extinction.
The passage discusses that by using the internationally established forest protection fund we can protect forest agriculture. Also, the passage satetes it is a very important solution to protect forests and provides three reasons to support that. in contrast, the professor thinks it is not a good idea and describes that all these three reasons are unconvincing.
First, the reading claims by dispersing these funds to governments, land owners, and farmers, they can resisi intrusions by logging industry and property developers who are after their land. However, the professor rebuts this pont by explaining that there is a possibility that farmers use these funds in an unappropriate ways. The increase of agricultural population by defult can lead to use of harmful pestisides and fertiles. By using this kind of dangerous material, we can increase the level of pollutant ingridients in water. As a result, it is not a good idea.
Second, the text asserts that use of this protection fund could be used to develop the economic of villages and tribals in forest areas. While, the professor rejects this reason, too by describing that perhaps these funds do not reach to the forest dwelers' hands. So, if they do not have this money they can not use it in the protection of forest. As you can see, the text's reason is nonesense and there is no guarantee that these funds use for the protection of forests.
Third, the article says that much of the global concern with deforestation focuses on the alarming loss of biodiversity. So, using the international fund to protect the biodiversity is one of best ways that we can use the fund. However, the lecture rejects this idea again by stating that there is a possibility people use these funds to planting plants with comercial value instead of using it for increasing biodiversitu. As aresult, the text's reason is not true.
- TOEFL TPO 01 - Integrated Writing Task 60
- tpo 12-integrated 75
- TPO-49 - Independent Writing Task Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?The ability to maintain friendships with a small number of people over a long period of time is more important for happiness than the ability to make many new friends 70
- technology has made children less creative than children in the past. Do you agree or disagree 60
- independent tpo 41 3
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 248, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: In
...provides three reasons to support that. in contrast, the professor thinks it is no...
^^
Line 3, column 264, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[4]
Message: “So , if” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... not reach to the forest dwelers hands. So, if they do not have this money they can no...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 189, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[4]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'of the best'.
Suggestion: of the best
...fund to protect the biodiversity is one of best ways that we can use the fund. However,...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, second, so, third, while, in contrast, kind of, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 22.412803532 161% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1563.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 314.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97770700637 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20951839842 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85111542785 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.512738853503 0.540411800872 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 486.0 419.366225166 116% => 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: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.7545530432 49.2860985944 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.6875 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.625 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.625 7.06452816374 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.165670631982 0.272083759551 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0598307991739 0.0996497079465 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0481670649712 0.0662205650399 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.110957176011 0.162205337803 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0168937789325 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: 11.8 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 63.6247240618 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.