The article introduces the topic of a policy called "let it burn." More specifically, the writer discusses this rule gave rise to burn Yellowstone, one of the most significant national park in the United States. The lecturer in the listening passage disagrees. In spite of some destructions, she believes that not only this vast fire was not destructive, but also it was utterly creative for remarkable reasons.
In the reading, the author begins by stating that the fires in this area damaged plenty of different plant species, especially the smaller once, and also the flames and smoke injured them. The lecturer, however, disagrees. She implies that as a result of the fires, some new vegetation initiated to grow up. The previous plants were exchanged by the new and smaller once quickly. Therefore, the diversification of the plants enjoyed a sharp increase dramatically.
The author also claims that the indigenous park animals were extremely affected by the fires. Moreover, the food chains disruption was one of the most serious threats which would provide unavailability in essential needs for the animals. Again, the lecturer asserts there are flaws in the writer's argument. The speaker holds that the annihilation of some species caused to create a chance for evoking the novel once. For instance, the new small plants engendered an excellent habitat for small species like the rabbits.
Another reason why the author claims that this issue imported irrecoverable harms to the environment is because of the improper results in tourist reduction, which they come to watch the national park. The professor is doubtful that this is accurate. She suggests that it is an abnormal factor which does not desire to put into discussion. In fact, this combination does not make any sense since the visitors came back in the park by the next year.
To sum up, both the writer and professor hold conflicting viewpoints about the "let it burn" policy. It is clear that they will have trouble finding common ground on this issue.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 290, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...lecturer asserts there are flaws in the writers argument. The speaker holds that the an...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, moreover, so, therefore, for instance, in fact, as a result, in spite of, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1726.0 1373.03311258 126% => OK
No of words: 333.0 270.72406181 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18318318318 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27180144563 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76340245891 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 145.348785872 136% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.594594594595 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 532.8 419.366225166 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.0163734512 49.2860985944 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.8421052632 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5263157895 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.63157894737 7.06452816374 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 4.45695364238 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.22 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 63.6247240618 157% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.