The author states the methods of protecting the forest trees oaks from the spread of dangerous P. ramorum fungus. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter - argues that viewpoint trying to prove these three methods do not seem convincing.
First and foremost, the writer mentions that P. ramorum spores should be stopped spreading from hikers or bicycle trails, suggesting that these small spores can be eliminated by encouraging hikers to wash their shoes.On the contrary, the professor cannot disagree more, reasoning that cleaning shoes is not a practical solution. Apart from that, the spores can spread quickly from water streams over a long distance.
The second argument the author gives is that there are chemicals that can be used to protect the oak trees. Therefore, these chemicals stimulate natural defense against the fungus. However, the lecturer cannot be more outraged, explaining that the injection may be fine for a few trees, but not for a thousand of them, it is impossible for the forest workers to inject all those oak trees.This idea sounds impractical.
Lastly, on one hand, the passage points out that another way to fight P. ramorum is by clear- cutting the trees that are already infected, but it is also involves cutting and burning the vegetation that are surrounding the oaks.The professor argues that this practice is ok, but it does not guaranty that we are going to save those trees that are very rare. Additionally, in the past, people preserved these trees, by using different ways to protect them from potential risks.Therefore, much of the vegetation that’s healthy and rare, should be protected.
Although, the text suggests three methods in supporting the protection of oak trees, the lecturer believes that none of them are persuasive.
The author states the methods of protecting the forest trees oaks from the spread of dangerous P. ramorum fungus. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter - argues that viewpoint trying to prove these three methods do not seem convincing.
First and foremost, the writer mentions that P. ramorum spores should be stopped spreading from hikers or bicycle trails, suggesting that these small spores can be eliminated by encouraging hikers to wash their shoes.On the contrary, the professor cannot disagree more, reasoning that cleaning shoes is not a practical solution. Apart from that, the spores can spread quickly from water streams over a long distance.
The second argument the author gives is that there are chemicals that can be used to protect the oak trees. Therefore, these chemicals stimulate natural defense against the fungus. However, the lecturer cannot be more outraged, explaining that the injection may be fine for a few trees, but not for a thousand of them, it is impossible for the forest workers to inject all those oak trees.This idea sounds impractical.
Lastly, on one hand, the passage points out that another way to fight P. ramorum is by clear- cutting the trees that are already infected, but it is also involves cutting and burning the vegetation that are surrounding the oaks.The professor argues that this practice is ok, but it does not guaranty that we are going to save those trees that are very rare. Additionally, in the past, people preserved these trees, by using different ways to protect them from potential risks.Therefore, much of the vegetation that’s healthy and rare, should be protected.
Although, the text suggests three methods in supporting the protection of oak trees, the lecturer believes that none of them are persuasive.
- The author states about the methods which can solve the problem of declining frog population. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter- argues that viewpoint trying to prove that these three methods do not seem convincing.First and foremost, the writer men 75
- TPO 24- integrated writing task 86
- There has been discussion about the ethanol fuel, whether it is an alternative to gasoline in the United States. The lecturer argues that the usage of ethanol is going to be very good alternative. While the author contends that it is not a good replacemen 73
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?Teachers should not make their social or political views known to students in the classroom.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 66
- The author states the methods of protecting the forest trees oaks from the spread of dangerous P. ramorum fungus. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter - argues that viewpoint trying to prove these three methods do not seem convincing.First and foremost 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 218, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: On
... encouraging hikers to wash their shoes.On the contrary, the professor cannot disa...
^^
Line 5, column 244, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...cannot be more outraged, explaining that the injection may be fine for a few tree...
^^
Line 5, column 391, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: This
...t workers to inject all those oak trees.This idea sounds impractical. Lastly, on ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 229, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
...egetation that are surrounding the oaks.The professor argues that this practice is ...
^^^
Line 7, column 477, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Therefore
...ys to protect them from potential risks.Therefore, much of the vegetation that's hea...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, lastly, may, second, so, therefore, apart from, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1506.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 289.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21107266436 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66492610655 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.584775086505 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 441.0 419.366225166 105% => 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: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 84.6262230821 49.2860985944 172% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.5 110.228320801 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0833333333 21.698381199 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.83333333333 7.06452816374 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.416975976366 0.272083759551 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.158479596722 0.0996497079465 159% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.180051896772 0.0662205650399 272% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.279189167546 0.162205337803 172% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.330922719991 0.0443174109184 747% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.3589403974 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.