In the United States, it had been common practice since the late 1960s not to suppress natural forest fires. The "let it burn" policy assumed that forest fires would burn themselves out quickly, without causing much damage. However, in the summer of 1988, forest fires in Yellowstone, the most famous national park in the country, burned for more than two months and spread over a huge area, encompassing more than 800,000 acres. Because of the large scale of the damage, many people called for replacing the "let it burn" policy with a policy of extinguishing forest fires as soon as they appeared. Three kinds of damage caused by the "let it burn" policy were emphasized by critics of the policy.
First, Yellowstone fires caused tremendous damage to the park's trees and other vegetation. When the fires finally died out, nearly one third of Yellowstone's land had been scorched. Trees were charred and blackened from flames and smoke. Smaller plants were entirely incinerated. What had been a national treasure now seemed like a devastated wasteland.
Second, the park wildlife was affected as well. Large animals like deer and elk were seen fleeing the fire. Many smaller species were probably unable to escape. There was also concern that the destruction of habitats and the disruption of food chains would make it impossible for the animals that survived the fire to return.
Third, the fires compromised the value of the park as a tourist attraction, which in turn had negative consequences for the local economy. With several thousand acres of the park engulfed in flames, the tourist season was cut short, and a large number of visitors decided to stay away. Of course, local businesses that depended on park visitors suffered as a result.
Both the reading and the lecturer discuss whether it is feasible to adopt the “let it burn” policy. The reading implies that the "let it burn" policy will cause severe damage. However, the professor strongly disagrees with the reading passage. Accordingly, he presents three refutations.
First of all, the reading passage mentions that the Yellowstone fires caused tremendous damage and its land had been scorched. Yet, the lecturer challenges the theory by arguing that fire is not only destructive but also creative. To elaborate, she states that the land will be covered by new plants after the fire. Therefore, it creates new opportunities for specific plants to grow.
Secondly, the passage suggests that the park wildlife was terribly affected by the fire as well. Nevertheless, the scholar seriously contradicts the hypothesis because the fire also provides new opportunities for smaller animals like rabbits to live, growing their population. Furthermore, she contends that the number of predators which depend on those small animals will increase at the same time. As a result, the land increases species diversity and becomes more prosperous.
Last but not least, the reading indicates that the fires lead to negative consequences for the local economy due to the decreasing number of tourists. Once again, the speaker opposes the evidence revealed in the reading passage. To be more specific, she thinks that the fire is unusual and does not happen every year. Apparently, the tourists will come back soon and keep growing year and year.
In conclusion, the professor argues against each theory in the reading passage. That is to say, she urges that the “let it burn” policy should be kept to protect the environment.
- In the United States it had been common practice since the late 1960s not to suppress natural forest fires The let it burn policy assumed that forest fires would burn themselves out quickly without causing much damage However in the summer of 1988 forest 86
- In the United States it had been common practice since the late 1960s not to suppress natural forest fires The let it burn policy assumed that forest fires would burn themselves out quickly without causing much damage However in the summer of 1988 forest 86
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 423, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'increases'' or 'increase's'?
Suggestion: increases'; increase's
...at the same time. As a result, the land increases species diversity and becomes more pros...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, apparently, but, first, furthermore, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, in conclusion, as a result, first of all, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1482.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 278.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.3309352518 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71368966325 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 145.348785872 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.589928057554 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 449.1 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.3154006998 49.2860985944 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.3333333333 110.228320801 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.4444444444 21.698381199 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.88888888889 7.06452816374 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.143446341287 0.272083759551 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0419546229194 0.0996497079465 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0453293230046 0.0662205650399 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.079390932169 0.162205337803 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0337349482263 0.0443174109184 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 53.8541721854 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.