The lecturer disputes the author's suggestion of developing an international fund to help conserve forests in developing countries. He provides several reasons to cast doubt on the author's claims.
First, according tio the text funds may encourage farmers to resist forest demolishing projects because they will have money to cultivate crops. The lecturer find this idea debatable. He contends that providing money to farmers may worsen the problem. According to lecturer, farmers may pollute water because they rely extensively on pesticides and fertilizers to enhance crop's production. Thus, such an approach would harm the environment.
Secondly, the lecturer contradicts the fallacy of the passage that providing money to home and land owners would make the life of people living in forest much easier. He contends that this approach is not effective either. Because theortically speaking the money would go to governments since they are mostly the owners of these properties. Moreover, if governments receive this money, they might necessarily use them to conserve forests.
Finally, the author argues that the funds may encourage farmers to plant diverse kind of crops and make healthier soil. However, the lecturer refutes these claims. He points out that farmers would not be necessarily interested in cultivating diverse type of plants. Instead , farmers would be interested to cultivate trees which are the most financially rewarding plants.
- Many countries require cigarette smokers to pay particularly high taxes on their purchases of cigarettes; similar taxes are being considered for unhealthy foods. The policy of imposing high taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy products has a number of 71
- TPO-29 - Independent Writing TaskDo you agree or disagree with the following statement?To improve the quality of education, universities should spend money on salaries university professors.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 71
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: A university education should be provided for free of charge to all interested scholars.Use examples and reasons to support your position. 73
- Edmontosaurs Migration 78
- TPO 33: CARVED STONE BALLSReading:Carved stone balls are a curious type of artifact found at a number of locations in Scotland. They date from the late Neolithic period, around 4,000 years ago. They are round in shape; they were carved from several types 68
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 27, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
The lecturer disputes the authors suggestion of developing an internation...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 159, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'finds'.
Suggestion: finds
... money to cultivate crops. The lecturer find this idea debatable. He contends that p...
^^^^
Line 3, column 217, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...atable. He contends that providing money to farmers may worsen the problem. Accor...
^^
Line 7, column 274, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...tivating diverse type of plants. Instead , farmers would be interested to cultivat...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, thus, kind of
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: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1238.0 1373.03311258 90% => OK
No of words: 221.0 270.72406181 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.60180995475 5.08290768461 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.85565412703 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79106310866 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 128.0 145.348785872 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.579185520362 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 372.6 419.366225166 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.0671217266 49.2860985944 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.5333333333 110.228320801 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.7333333333 21.698381199 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.26666666667 7.06452816374 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.108549119638 0.272083759551 40% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0377162631333 0.0996497079465 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0799827987903 0.0662205650399 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0843316221068 0.162205337803 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0846710058479 0.0443174109184 191% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 48.81 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.61 12.2367328918 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.