prevent desertification
The reading passage explores why a box-shaped device helping young trees to grow and fighting against desertification can’t be practical, and several reasons are given in support of this statement. As reasonable as these points seem, the professor in the lecture casts doubt on them, indicating that the devices are worth carrying out.
To begin with, the author suggests that, since there are plentiful trees that need to be accompanied by the device, some countries might not be able to afford the cost. Conversely, disputing the reading’s point, the lecturer claims that they don’t take devices’ reusability into account. This device can be reused 20 times and thus the cost can be divided into reasonable amounts. Therefore, the lecturer believes that there won’t be financial burdens for the countries that need the devices to stop desertification.
Second, the lecturer concurs with the author that local people are unwilling to look after these trees since they can’t rely on these trees as their food resources. Nevertheless, she states that local people can potentially benefit from the devices. Not only can the devices sustain trees' lives, but they can provide water for vegetables planted by local people. Furthermore, she mentions that the branches of trees growing perfectly with the help of the devices can be utilized to make fire. Accordingly, the lecturer alleges that there might be some motivation for local people to take care of trees and devices.
Last but not least, even though the author points out that trees can end up being too big for the device to maintain their lives, the lecturer argues that it’s a misconception. This is because once trees have outgrown the devices and are removed from the devices, they have well-developed roots that can reach deep enough to absorb the water of the moist soil. To establish a more solid explanation, the lecturer cites the trees planted in the Sarah Desert as proof that they could keep thriving after the devices were removed. As a result, the lecturer rules out the limited ability of the devices, implying that trees can survive without devices.
- TPO 40 Integrated Writing Task 70
- Inhospitable Venus 80
- Opposing coal ash disposal regulation 90
- TPO 48 Integrated Writing Task In recent years many frog species around the world have declined in numbers or even gone extinct due to changes in their environment These population declines and extinctions have serious consequences for the ecosystems 80
- Glass windows harming birds 80
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, conversely, furthermore, if, look, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, thus, well, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 5.04856512141 317% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1790.0 1373.03311258 130% => OK
No of words: 349.0 270.72406181 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12893982808 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32221490584 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60761358471 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 145.348785872 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.527220630372 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 540.0 419.366225166 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.9372467311 49.2860985944 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.333333333 110.228320801 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2666666667 21.698381199 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.53333333333 7.06452816374 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0142619072956 0.272083759551 5% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.00579654794542 0.0996497079465 6% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0216886964378 0.0662205650399 33% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0162028430151 0.162205337803 10% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0280641473293 0.0443174109184 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.3589403974 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.67 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 63.6247240618 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.