TPO 38, integrated-
using international fund to protect forests from being deforested is useful.
The article asserts that using an international forest protecting fund is really useful for conserving forests from deforestation activities. The professor, however, overthrows this hypothesis and believes that the authors idea of preserving forests from deforestation activities of diverse industries is not plausible. In the following, his explanations, used to shed light on this convoluted problem, will be discussed thoroughly.
First of all, the passage claims that this budget can be used for agricultural issues which will decrease logging practices. The lecturer, on the other hand, rejects this notion, mainly because he thinks agricultural activities are also deemed destructive. As population is growing, farmers are required to promote their harvesting practices by using state-of-the-art technologies and materials. The utilization of fertilizers and pesticides, for instance, will have a negative impact on the environment as they pollute runoffs and water in the region. Therefore, this inclination will destroy forests at a higher rate in comparison with logging.
Secondly, the essay upholds that this fund can be used for developing local economies of villagers. The teacher insists that this money is inadequate and believes that dispersing this fund is not practical since it finally goes to forests' owners neither the governments nor the residents. There is no guarantee that this fund will be used for forest protecting practices insomuch as this money may not end up for forset dwellers. Thus, people may still stick to deforestation activities in order to earn something for their living.
Tertiary, the reading states that this money can be used to encourage local people to sustain biodiversity of the forests as well as their species. The educator refutes this belief since he claims that people will eventually use this money to plant commercial trees. In the long term, this action will not promote the biodiversity of jungles.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2020-06-10 | Seyed Armin Mirhosseini | 80 | view |
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 25 in 30
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 15 12
No. of Words: 301 250
No. of Characters: 1622 1200
No. of Different Words: 171 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.165 4.2
Average Word Length: 5.389 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.906 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 124 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 100 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 67 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.067 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 4.626 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.733 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.316 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.539 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.077 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4