Because of climate change, more and more land that was once used to grow crops or provide food for animals is turning to dry, unusable desert land. There are many proposals about how to stop this process, known as desertification. A number of proposals involve growing trees, because trees can help protect soil and provide many other benefits to fight against desertification. Some scientists have proposed that the best way to grow trees in dry areas in danger of desertification is by using a box-shaped device surrounding the young tree. The device collects water that condenses from vapor in the atmosphere and helps the tree to grow. However, other scientists believe that this device will not be successful in fighting against desertification for the following reasons.
First, at a cost of 25 U S. dollars each, the device would make growing trees a prohibitively expensive process. Meaningful efforts to fight desertification involve growing millions of trees. Some countries most affected by desertification cannot afford to buy devices for millions of trees
Second, plans for fighting desertification involve asking local people to install and maintain the devices. People living in some of the areas most affected by desertification work long days in harsh conditions: sometimes barely managing to provide food for their families. It would be difficult to motivate these people to look after trees that cannot serve as a source of food for them.
Third, the device's ability to collect and conserve water is limited. Each one provides only enough water to keep a small tree alive. Trees that have outgrown the device have to deal with unforgiving environmental conditions on their own. In some places where the devices are being tried, six months can pass without a drop of rain. Once the trees become too big for the device, they may not be able to survive in such a harsh environment.
The reading and the lecture both talk about a kind of device to help fighting desertification. The reading givs us three reasons why the devices cannot be helpful. But the professor of the lecture argues that all of the reasons are not convient. She holds the opinion that the divices can be used to fight with desertification.
First, the price of the device is high, which is mentioned in the reading. However, the professor points out that even it is costy but they can be reused. Because the trees will grow, and they will be too big to stay in the device. People must remove the device and it can be use for other young trees. What is more, the time of reused could be 20 times, which means one device can help 20 trees to grow, so the price is reasonable.
Second, the people lived nearby maybe not want to install and maintain the devices, because they are poor and the devices will not bring the food. To against this arguement, the professor claims that the devices can hold water for other plants, such as crops or vegetables, which can bring food. Also, the trees' branch can be used as firewoods. To sum up, the devices can bring food and firewoods, which could be the motivation of people to install and maintain the devices.
Finally, the reading holds the opinion that the ability of the devices is not enough make tree survive. The professor gives more convient evidence, that 90% trees can live more than 2 years. Because the devices are small, allowing the trees to grow long roots to get more undergound water in deep earth.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 210, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...he professor of the lecture argues that all of the reasons are not convient. She holds the...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, second, so, kind of, such as, to sum up, what is more
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 5.04856512141 317% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1274.0 1373.03311258 93% => OK
No of words: 278.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.58273381295 5.08290768461 90% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.31282376555 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 379.8 419.366225166 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 28.6890658614 49.2860985944 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 79.625 110.228320801 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.375 21.698381199 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.125 7.06452816374 87% => 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 : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0962666088425 0.272083759551 35% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0361380183597 0.0996497079465 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0324682534623 0.0662205650399 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0649381363698 0.162205337803 40% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0280172054436 0.0443174109184 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.8 13.3589403974 66% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 71.14 53.8541721854 132% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 11.0289183223 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 8.99 12.2367328918 73% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.92 8.42419426049 82% => OK
difficult_words: 43.0 63.6247240618 68% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.