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.
The reading talks about using a box-shaped device for desertification. The author listed three factors to fight against this solution. However, the lecturer finds all the reasons unconvincing and presents some evidence to refute all of them.
First, the author mentioned that this tool is very expensive as it uses for growing trees. In contrast, the speaker dismisses this idea and asserts that once the young trees grew, the device can be removed and also, it can be reused 20 times for other trees. As a result, its cost is reasonable.
Furthermore, the author points out that asking local people to install and maintain the devices are not practical because these trees do not have any benefits for them such as providing food and firewood. On the other hand, the speaker casts doubt on this issue by standing that it is a possible reward for local people by using them for other plants like vegetables. Hence, they can grow more food. Besides, larger branches can be used for firewood, consequently, it provides some advantages for local people.
Finally, the reading passage proposes that the device's ability to collect and conserve water is finite. On the contrary, in direct contradiction to the reading passage, the speaker claims that when the devices exerted for young trees they can develop their root systems and reach the source of water to get enough water for their growth when they get mature. For example, 90% of trees in the Sahara desert after two years using the device thrived. In a nutshell, by giving all these three reasons, the listening successfully goes against the reading article.
| 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 |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?Successful people try new things and take risks rather than only do what they know how to do well. 86
- TPO 50 3
- When teachers assign projects on which students must work together, the students learn much more effectively they are asked to work alone on projects. 90
- Glass is a favored building material for modern architecture, yet it is also very dangerous for wild birds. Because they often cannot distinguish between glass and open air, millions of birds are harmed every year when they try to fly through glass window 70
- tpo 25, integrated writing 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 48, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'devices'' or 'device's'?
Suggestion: devices'; device's
..., the reading passage proposes that the devices ability to collect and conserve water i...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, consequently, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, so, for example, in contrast, such as, as a result, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1347.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 270.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98888888889 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05360046442 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48958323648 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.574074074074 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 407.7 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.8227602404 49.2860985944 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.2142857143 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2857142857 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.7142857143 7.06452816374 166% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.1671964323 0.272083759551 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0632058351665 0.0996497079465 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0484005021165 0.0662205650399 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0977324917202 0.162205337803 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0345494046444 0.0443174109184 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => 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.