Both the reading and the lecture are about the development of an international fund to be used to protect the world's forests from the increased pressure they facing. The author of the reading provides us with three examples of how this fund can be used. On the other side, the lecturer challenges these uses by providing us with the reasons why these uses are not the best.
First of all, the author suggests that the fund should be directed to protect the forest's agriculture. As it is mentioned this way will help government, landowners, and farmers in facing the deforesting pressure come from oil companies, logging industry, and property developers. This argument challenged by the lecturer. He says that forest agriculture is a destructive pressure itself. He further illustrates that farmers are under pressure to increase land productivity and to overcome this pressure they use fertilizers and insecticides. These products cause water pollution and they also run off the nutrition of the soil. As a result, directing fund in the agriculture field is not a good use of them.
second, the author contends that the use of this fund in stipending the local dwellers of the forest will be an ideal use. The article notes that this money will help the villagers to resist the conversion of their land to any destructive thing rather than a regular forest. Also will provide them with better education, health services, and nutritional aids. This will make them less tempted to leave the land or to destroy it. However, the lecturer rebates that by asserting that the money will not be directed in the right way, because the money will go to the landlords or the government, not the actual residents. As a result, there is no benefit will come on the dwellers to encourage them to protect the land from any inner or outer invasion. So this is not a good use of the money.
Finally, it is stated in the article that this fund can be used in establishing protected forest areas. The author establishes that these protected forests will maintain biodiversity as the people will not use them for their personal purposes like food or shelter. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits that even though with protected forests, human will maintain planting the commercially used plants, which will destroy the biodiversity.
- TPO-24 - Integrated Writing Task Animal fossils usually provide very little opportunity to study the actual animal tissues, because in fossils the animals' living tissues have been largely replaced by minerals. Thus, scientists were very excited recently 66
- TPO-25 - Integrated Writing Task In 1938 an archaeologist in Iraq acquired a set of clay jars that had been excavated two years earlier by villagers constructing a railroad line. The vessel was about 2,200 years old. Each clay jay contained a copper cylin 73
- face to face communication versus other types of communication 73
- TPO 44 - Integrated Writing Task 80
- TPO-22 - Integrated Writing Task Ethanol fuel, made from plants such as corn and sugar cane, has been advocated by some people as an alternative to gasoline in the United States. However, many critics argue that ethanol is not a good replacement for gasol 68
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 84, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'forests'' or 'forest's'?
Suggestion: forests'; forest's
... fund should be directed to protect the forests agriculture. As it is mentioned this wa...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 2, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Second
...ture field is not a good use of them. second, the author contends that the use of th...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 276, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...ive thing rather than a regular forest. Also will provide them with better education...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, second, so, well, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 5.04856512141 297% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 22.412803532 183% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 45.0 30.3222958057 148% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1929.0 1373.03311258 140% => OK
No of words: 391.0 270.72406181 144% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.93350383632 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44676510885 4.04702891845 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71181042677 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 145.348785872 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.480818414322 0.540411800872 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 596.7 419.366225166 142% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.1033258197 49.2860985944 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.45 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.55 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.65 7.06452816374 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
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: 11.6 13.3589403974 87% => 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: 11.31 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 63.6247240618 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => 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.