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.
In the lecture, the professor believes that desertification is an effective method to solve the problem, and none of the stated drawbacks is convincing. This casts doubt on the reading which states that the device would not be successful to limit the issue.
To begin with, the lecture states that the instrument would not cost that much. In fact, the device is reusable because scholars can use the device again when the old tree grow up. Furthermore, one instrument can be used to grow 20 different trees. This contradicts the article which claims that growing trees is expensive.
In addition, the speaker claims that is true that frame would be asked to install and look over trees, but they would receive benefit too. This is because by collecting water they will feed the trees along with their crops such as vegetables. Furthermore, when trees grow up farmers can use the trees Barnes as fire wood. This refutes the text which states that locals would not get benefit; thus they would not be happy to help.
Finally, the professor explains why trees can thrive inside the device. This is because trees extend their roots inside the device which allow them to absorb underground water. Moreover, research states that when they used the same manner in Sahara dessert, 90% of trees thrive after removing the device from them. This opposes the text which states that the device could not provide suitable environment for trees to grow.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-30 | naziii | 80 | view |
| 2019-12-27 | Amirreza97 | 73 | view |
| 2019-11-30 | shrjhn1234 | 73 | view |
| 2019-11-21 | Seema Modak | 3 | view |
| 2019-10-26 | ghazalsaed1995 | 3 | view |
- Communal online encyclopedias represent one of the latest resources to be found on the Internet. They are in many respects like traditional printed encyclopedias collections of articles on various subjects. What is specific to these online encyclopedias, 76
- The Extinction of the Steller’s Sea CowA huge marine mammal known as the Steller’s sea cow once lived in the waters around Bering Island off the coast of Siberia. It was described in 1741 by George W. Steller, a naturalist who was among the first Euro 85
- The Little Ice Age was a period of unusually cold temperature in many parts of the world that lasted from about the year 1350 until 1900C.E.. There were unusually harsh winters, and glaciers grew larger in many areas. Scientists have long wondered what ca 3
- The Little Ice Age was a period of unusually cold temperature in many parts of the world that lasted from about the year 1350 until 1900C.E.. There were unusually harsh winters, and glaciers grew larger in many areas. Scientists have long wondered what ca 3
- The Little Ice Age was a period of unusually cold temperature in many parts of the world that lasted from about the year 1350 until 1900C.E.. There were unusually harsh winters, and glaciers grew larger in many areas. Scientists have long wondered what ca 3
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, furthermore, if, look, moreover, so, thus, in addition, in fact, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1212.0 1373.03311258 88% => OK
No of words: 244.0 270.72406181 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.96721311475 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.95227774224 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.33187717709 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 134.0 145.348785872 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.549180327869 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 351.0 419.366225166 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 25.5893791744 49.2860985944 52% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 86.5714285714 110.228320801 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4285714286 21.698381199 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.21428571429 7.06452816374 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0862378298777 0.272083759551 32% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0371968887484 0.0996497079465 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0315527525813 0.0662205650399 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0566630620246 0.162205337803 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0255771131353 0.0443174109184 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 13.3589403974 80% => 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: 11.25 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.78 8.42419426049 92% => OK
difficult_words: 51.0 63.6247240618 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => 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.