salvage logging
The provided material are concerned with the salvage logging which is the process of removing dead trees after disasters such as forest fires or storms. The author states that salvage logging is beneficial for both damaged forests and the economy. In contrast, the lecturer repudiates this point through several counterarguments that are as follows.
Initially, the author says that trees decomposition takes some years and salvage logging can facilitate the process of growing a new tree in a short time. However, the lecturer explains that the natural process of decomposition enriches the soil. Actually, due to the rapid removal of trees, the soil is bereft of nutrients.
Second, the writer thinks that some inspect such as spruce bark beetle perils trees healthy and the salvage logging process minimizes their danger by removing rotting wood. Yet again, the speaker underscores that spruce beetles have been living in forests for many years and have never caused any bad damages. The salvage logging practice causes more harm to forests than beetles.
The final contention between the article and lecture is the economical aspects of salvage logging. The author says that this process can provide much wood for industries that depend on wood. Also, it helps create additional jobs for local residents. On the other hand, the speaker explains that the salvage logging process is not an economical process. To use this practice, they should use some instruments or machines such as helicopters that are costly to maintain. The jobs that provide by this process are temporary and can not count as a good effect of salvage logging.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 100, 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.
... economical aspects of salvage logging. The author says that this process can provi...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, however, second, so, as for, in contrast, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => 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: 1386.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 264.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03089032464 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54003752602 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.55303030303 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 418.5 419.366225166 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.4625703548 49.2860985944 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.4 110.228320801 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.6 7.06452816374 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => 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: 0.352785747894 0.272083759551 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.131314170423 0.0996497079465 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.13546723448 0.0662205650399 205% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.237120257532 0.162205337803 146% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0634545379689 0.0443174109184 143% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.87 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.67 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.