According to the writing, an enormous fire forest had occurred in 19881 in the Yellowstone park which caused dissatisfaction among people of the common policy "let it burn" in that time. People wants the government to change this policy with diminishing fire as soon as fire take place. The writer states three damaged "let it burn" policy had been induced during fire take place in the Yellowstone park. However, the lecture controversy disagrees and challenged those critics one by one.
First, the reading passage states that according to "let it burn "policy Yellowstone park destroyed and alternated to a wasteland. Nonetheless, the lecture contradicts it by pointing out that fire scorched vegetation and colonized by new plants with extreme diversity. After the fire took place opportunity had given to those plants needed to unshaded space for grow. Soon after, seeds germinated and high level of plants grow in Yellowstone park.
Second, the writer claims that the fire had damaged wildlife either. While the lecture refutes it by stating that fire as well as plants created new opportunities for animals. In fact, Yellowstone park had become ideal habitats for animals such as rabbit and hair. What's more, it leads predators to reach a source of food which means food chain become stronger that is in contract with what stated in the reading.
Finally, the reading puts forward that the burnet park caused visitors unsatisfaction. Visitors' number decreased and as a result local business damaged. Nonetheless, the speaker refutes it by pointing out that such fire is rare. And it would be a problem if had happened many times. In fact, particular weather conditions such as rainfall and culmination cause Yellowstone fire become enormous. After 1981 it did not happen the same enormous fire and the next year visitors come back.
- TPO-41 - Integrated Writing Task Burning coal in power plants produces a waste product called coal ash, a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals Environmentalists in the United States are concerned about the damage such harm 70
- Integrated essay TPO20 73
- TPO-20 - Integrated Writing Task In the United States, it had been common practice since the late 1960s no to suppress natural forest fires. The “let it burn” policy assumed that forest fire would burn themselves out quickly, without causing much dama 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, nonetheless, second, so, well, while, in fact, such as, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 10.4613686534 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1591.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 299.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32107023411 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81444038991 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 145.348785872 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548494983278 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 491.4 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.706707645 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.3888888889 110.228320801 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.6111111111 21.698381199 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 7.06452816374 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 4.45695364238 269% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.390643893748 0.272083759551 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.122464924335 0.0996497079465 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0616368681807 0.0662205650399 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.244837925342 0.162205337803 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0508274923169 0.0443174109184 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.28 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.