Funds for forest protection
The author explains how an international fund is utilized in forest protection in the article, and several suggestions are given in support of this statement. Although these points seem reasonable and plausible, the lecturer casts doubt on them for the following reasons.
To begin with, the author mentions that the fund can be used to preserve and promote agriculture in forests simultaneously resisting the invasions of some negative developments including the logging industry and oil companies. Conversely, the lecturer points out that, in fact, agriculture will pose negative impacts on forests as well. Since farmers apply modern agricultural technology such as fertilizer and pesticides which bring about runoff and pollution of water, the surrounding environments can still be damaged. Thereby, the lecturer disagrees with the agricultural promotion idea.
Second, the lecturer acutely identifies a weakness in the reading passage that the fund can be distributed to the villages and communities situated in forests and help the residents to maintain and continue their daily lives. The lecturer points out that this financial aid will actually end up in the hands of forest owners like governments rather than forest dwellers. Furthermore, she asserts that we can’t be sure that forest owners will appropriately harness this money. As a result, the lecturer eliminates this manner from the good ideas to protect forests.
Last but not least, even though the author claims that we can prevent species from extinction and keep forest biodiversity, essential to peoples’ daily supplies, by exploiting funds to establish a protected forest area, the lecturer argues that it is a misconception. She indicates that people will plant trees and vegetation embodied commercial purposes instead. Accordingly, it won’t be conducive to and consistent with the original goal.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, actually, but, conversely, furthermore, if, second, so, still, well, as to, in fact, such as, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1601.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 286.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.5979020979 5.08290768461 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11236361783 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98158069877 2.5805825403 116% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.622377622378 0.540411800872 115% => OK
syllable_count: 483.3 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.9620040091 49.2860985944 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.153846154 110.228320801 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 21.698381199 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.2307692308 7.06452816374 145% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.303085823624 0.272083759551 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0912493543286 0.0996497079465 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0817384887796 0.0662205650399 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.188811603998 0.162205337803 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0643049584501 0.0443174109184 145% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 13.3589403974 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 53.8541721854 76% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.2 12.2367328918 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.97 8.42419426049 118% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 63.6247240618 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.