The main topic of both the lecture and the passage is about salvage logging. Considering this, the author claims that the envoirnment and the economy can both benefit from this practice. The professor, on the other hand, utterly rejects whatever mentioned in the passage through citing three reasons.
First, both the reading and the lecture talk about probable effects of the salvage logging on the forest region. According to the passage, salvage logging provides land to grow new trees. Besides, vermons population would increase dramatically, and bugs endanger live planets. The professor, however, rebuts the author's view and states, salvage logging would impoverish soil which is vital to revive the forest, and also the dead trees could shelter other animals such as birds as well as other insects.
Second of all, both the passage and the lecture debates likely economical imapcts. The professor goes on to mention, the wood which would be obtained from dorment trees can be used as a raw material in industries, pluse, it will create many jobs for local residents. Nontheless, the profeesor supports the contradict idea and illustrates, it would not miserly to cut those precious trees beacuse the operation's cost would be enourmous. Moreover, it would just make temporary jobs for professional outsiders not local people who live in the vicinity.
All in all, the author belives, both the envoirnment and the economy could beneficiary, but, the professor holds a different idea and states the dead trees are essential for reviving forests and it does not have a significant imapct on the economy.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 260, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , the
...any jobs for local residents. Nontheless,the profeesor support contradict idea and i...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 12.0772626932 25% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 8.0 22.412803532 36% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1307.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 247.0 270.72406181 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.29149797571 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96437052324 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59976408463 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.607287449393 0.540411800872 112% => OK
syllable_count: 401.4 419.366225166 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => 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: 40.667140624 49.2860985944 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.3571428571 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6428571429 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.28571428571 7.06452816374 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.281577648211 0.272083759551 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0875461576585 0.0996497079465 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0662803008379 0.0662205650399 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149736673009 0.162205337803 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.073322662781 0.0443174109184 165% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.27 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.