TPO-21 Genetically modified tree
Both reading material and lecturer are mainly talking about genetically modified trees whether would be productive or not. On the one side, the writer states genetically selected trees would be fruitful, resistant, and friendly to the wild nature. Each of the lecturer ideas downside.
First of all, the writer mentions that modified trees are resistant in climate and environment more than natural original trees. A good example is that a new papaya trees are stronger enough from Ringspot pesticide than when they were prone to ruin before. But, the lecturer points that genetically modified trees could not pass the challenges of weather such as climate change. They uniformed live in constant weathered environment, thus, non modified trees are more survival.
Secondly, the writer states it seems economically productive because trees created to yield more fruits in short time. However, the lecturer refutes this idea. Instead she mentions seeds of genetically modified trees are expensive and take more care. For instance, Creator Company has to tend more attention on it that will take more costs.
Thirdly, the writer points new trees will helpful to expand wild trees. For example, firewood and building timbers are now high demanded, thus, most of them cut down. if the genetically modified trees replaced by trees in the wild forest could help the animals and plants. On the other hand, the woman conducts that new tree prone to do not help it instead they will compete with sunlight, soil, and water with each other. Therefore, they never give chance to other ones to grow.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 161, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Instead,
...owever, the lecturer refutes this idea. Instead she mentions seeds of genetically modif...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 168, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: If
... demanded, thus, most of them cut down. if the genetically modified trees replaced...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, as to, for example, for instance, in short, such as, talking about, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1336.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 258.0 270.72406181 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17829457364 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00778971557 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4216215531 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 145.348785872 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.585271317829 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 405.9 419.366225166 97% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.0487909288 49.2860985944 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.5 110.228320801 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.125 21.698381199 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.1875 7.06452816374 158% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => 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: 0.442660203667 0.272083759551 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.142522807546 0.0996497079465 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0839846843088 0.0662205650399 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.270093748082 0.162205337803 167% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0325158014219 0.0443174109184 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 13.3589403974 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.