problems with improve trees by genetic modification
Recently, there has been a ton of debates as to improve trees by genetic modification. Most specifically, with regards to the passage, the writer put forth the idea that in this approach, it is possible to create trees that produce more fruits and also grow faster. In the listening, the lecturer is quick to point out there are serious flaws with the writer's claim. In fact, the speaker believes genetic modification has some problems for trees.
First and foremost, the author in the reading states that genetically modified trees are designed to be harder than nature trees. Some professionals, in the same field, however, stand in firm opposition to this claim. In the listening, for example, the professor states these kinds of ways are not efficient. He goes on to say that different trees have different genetic codes. So, with providing the same modification every tree dying.
One group of scholar represented by the writer think that genetically modified trees tend to grow faster with more fruits with less cost for pesticides. Of course, though, not all the experts believe this claim is accurate. Again the speaker specifically addresses this point when he states this approach has hidden cost because farmers must pay more for genetic modification seeds and also by the law the farmers have not allowed collecting seeds and they must pay company every time they plant.
Finally, the writer wraps his argument by positing that demand for wood in many areas and save the endangered native trees is happend with this way. Not surprisingly, the lecturer takes issue by contending that genetic modification can damage wild trees by distract them in a wild environment and as a result, native trees outcompete for resources.
To sum up, both the writer and speaker hold conflicting views about modification trees.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-09 | Beichen | 88 | view |
| 2023-03-30 | sara.ana | 80 | view |
| 2021-10-28 | Sara refaat | 68 | view |
| 2021-07-31 | talelaldabous | 73 | view |
| 2021-02-02 | Elhamsarvari | 60 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 351, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... native trees outcompete for resources. To sum up, both the writer and speaker h...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, so, as to, for example, in fact, of course, as a result, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1534.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 300.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11333333333 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66390690528 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.55 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 465.3 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 2.5761589404 311% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.7121593196 49.2860985944 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.266666667 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.73333333333 7.06452816374 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
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: 0.400807744315 0.272083759551 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.128121119542 0.0996497079465 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.096248120379 0.0662205650399 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.213309212531 0.162205337803 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.102016692177 0.0443174109184 230% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.