The reading and the lecture are both about the world’s forests, and how they are trying to have funds to promote forests. The author of the reading believes in giving funds to places. The lecturer casts doubts on the claim made in the article. He thinks that the funds should go to a different cause other than the ones stated.
First of all, the author points out that giving funds to farmers for agriculture would be helpful for the growth of forests. It is mentioned that these would help them resist intrusions from places such as the logging industry. This point is challenged by the lecturer. He says the funds going to farmers would not help forests, but instead devastate the forests. Furthermore, he argues that the common way of farming, such as manure and pesticide would not help the forests, but damage and harm the forests more.
Secondly, the author contends that giving funds to forest dwellers would help with the forest. The article notes that these funds would most likely guard the forests from industries. The lecturer rebuts this argument. He suggests that most forest owner is the government not the villagers, thus, the money will not be useful for villagers. He elaborates on this by mentioning that money for the government would most likely do nothing for the people.
Finally, the author states that giving funds toward places such as villages would help the forests. The article establishes that the people would plant trees, to make forests. The lecturer on the other hand, posits that most trees planted would have commercial processes. He puts forth the idea, by mentioning that this would do nothing for the developments of forests, and would be inadequate.
- Rembrandt is the most famous of the seventeenth century Dutch painters However there are doubts whether some paintings attributed to Rembrandt were actually painted by him One such painting is known as attributed to Rembrandt because of its style and
- Supermarkets should only sell food produce from within their country rather than from oversea What is your opinion on this 80
- Successful people try new things and take risks rather than only doing what they know how to do well 80
- Imagine you have two friends who deal with problems in very different ways One of your friends believes that laughter and taking things lightly not too seriously is the best way to find a solution for most problems Your other friends believes that it is b 80
- As you read the passage below, consider how Leo W. Gerard usesevidence, such as facts and examples, to support claimsreasoning to develop ideas and to connect claims and evidencestylistic or persuasive elements, such as word choice or appeals to emotion, 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 190, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ing believes in giving funds to places. The lecturer casts doubts on the claim made...
^^^
Line 5, column 271, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...that most forest owner is the government not the villagers, thus, the money will ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, if, second, secondly, thus, well, such as, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 5.04856512141 277% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => 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: 1421.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 286.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96853146853 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11236361783 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.39547238261 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.479020979021 0.540411800872 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 404.1 419.366225166 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => 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: 29.9107726578 49.2860985944 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 78.9444444444 110.228320801 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.8888888889 21.698381199 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 7.06452816374 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.110642045475 0.272083759551 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0400991587432 0.0996497079465 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0355747509836 0.0662205650399 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0738280649451 0.162205337803 46% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0215694092841 0.0443174109184 49% => 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: 9.9 13.3589403974 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 73.17 53.8541721854 136% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.8 11.0289183223 62% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.25 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.42 8.42419426049 88% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.