The author states about the criticized reasons of the turtle excluder device which is incorporated into the nets of shrimp-fishing boats. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter-argues that viewpoint trying to prove that these three criticized reasons do not seem convincing.
First and foremost, the writer mentions that the shrimpers complain that these devices are making them to loose shrimp on daily basis and the cost is high in comparison with the small chance of saving one turtle. On the contrary, the professor cannot disagree more, reasoning that it is true that catching a turtle by one boat is a small chance, but are thousand of boats in the open seas that have high chances to catch them.
The second argument the author gives is the alternative methods of shortening the time that shrimp boats are allowed to keep their net underwater. However, the lecturer cannot be more outraged, explaining that that this is a good idea theoretically, but not in reality because they cannot monitor the time that the thousands of shrimpers are using even though the rule exist. No body can control that. Therefore, the chances to reduce turtles population would be increased.
Lastly, on one hand, the reading passage points out that the TEDs devices might be small as a size to catch same other species like leatherback turtles that can grow quite large. Nevertheless, the lecturer declaring that the size of TEDs may be modified without loosing its faction.
Although, the text suggests three criticized reasons of TEDS usage in supporting these critics, the professor believes that none of them are persuasive.
The author states about the criticized reasons of the turtle excluder device which is incorporated into the nets of shrimp-fishing boats. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter-argues that viewpoint trying to prove that these three criticized reasons do not seem convincing.
First and foremost, the writer mentions that the shrimpers complain that these devices are making them to loose shrimp on daily basis and the cost is high in comparison with the small chance of saving one turtle. On the contrary, the professor cannot disagree more, reasoning that it is true that catching a turtle by one boat is a small chance, but are thousand of boats in the open seas that have high chances to catch them.
The second argument the author gives is the alternative methods of shortening the time that shrimp boats are allowed to keep their net underwater. However, the lecturer cannot be more outraged, explaining that that this is a good idea theoretically, but not in reality because they cannot monitor the time that thousands of shrimpers are using even though the rule exist. No body can control that. Therefore, the chances to reduce turtles population would be increased.
Lastly, on one hand, the reading passage points out that the TEDs devices might be small as a size to catch same other species like leatherback turtles that can grow quite large. Nevertheless, the lecturer declaring that the size of TEDs may be modified without loosing its faction.
Although, the text suggests three criticized reasons of TEDS usage in supporting these critics, the professor believes that none of them are persuasive.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 107, Rule ID: LOOSE_LOSE[3]
Message: Did you mean 'lose' (= miss, waste, suffer the loss etc.)?
Suggestion: lose
...n that these devices are making them to loose shrimp on daily basis and the cost is h...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 355, Rule ID: NODT_DOZEN[1]
Message: Use simply: 'a thousand'.
Suggestion: a thousand
... by one boat is a small chance, but are thousand of boats in the open seas that have hig...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 206, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: that
...rer cannot be more outraged, explaining that that this is a good idea theoretically, but ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 373, Rule ID: ANY_BODY[2]
Message: Did you mean 'Nobody'?
Suggestion: Nobody
...s are using even though the rule exist. No body can control that. Therefore, the chance...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, lastly, may, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, it is true, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => 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: 1367.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 266.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13909774436 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03850299372 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66441649698 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.593984962406 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 409.5 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.9762523997 49.2860985944 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.272727273 110.228320801 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1818181818 21.698381199 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.27272727273 7.06452816374 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.402748773156 0.272083759551 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.151697536259 0.0996497079465 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.21924813389 0.0662205650399 331% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.255412791485 0.162205337803 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.34685715741 0.0443174109184 783% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.83 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.74 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.