One of the threats to endangered sea turtle species is the use of nets by commercial shrimp-fishing boats. When turtles get accidentally caught in the nets, they cannot rise to the surface of the ocean to breathe, and they die. Some people suggest that this problem can be solved through an invention called a turtle excluder device (TED) that is incorporated into the nets. A TED provides a passage through which the turtles can escape. However, TEDs have been criticized for several reasons.
First, some shrimpers (shrimp fishers) argue that turtles get trapped only rarely: it is estimated that on average, one shrimp boat accidentally catches about one turtle every month. On the other hand, using TEDs costs the shrimpers some of their catch. Every time the shrimpers cast the nets, a certain percentage of shrimp manage to escape through the turtle passages. The shrimpers complain that the cost of losing shrimp on a daily basis is too high in comparison with the small chance of saving one turtle.
Second, there are alternative methods of protecting sea turtles that may be more effective than TEDs. One method that can be used is shortening the time limit that shrimp boats are allowed to keep their nets underwater. When the time limit is reached, the nets have to be pulled up to the surface, allowing any turtles caught in the net to get air and also giving shrimpers the opportunity to release the turtles from the nets.
Third, TEDs are not effective for larger species of endangered sea turtles. Some species like loggerhead and leatherback turtles can grow to be quite large and cannot fit through the escape passage that standard TEDs provide. Such turtles cannot escape from the nets even if the nets are equipped with TEDs.
The reading and lecture are about device which enables imperiled sea turtle through the nets. In the article, three drawback of using the device was proposed. The lecturer is the opinion of these interpretations are faulty.
Firstly, the author mentions that sea turtles are trapped scarcely. Moreover, utilizing the tools to not to catch the turtle is posing problem because some shrimps go out of the nets through the hole. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. She mentions that there are myriad of boats fishing and catching thousands of the turtles . Furthermore, she explains that the reduction of the population is caused by the entire fishing industry but not individual boat.
Secondly, in the reading passage, it is claimed that government can diminish amount of time which nets are kept underwater. Therefore, the sea turtles would be able to breathe because the extent of time which the creature expends underwater would be insufficient to let the species die. Nonetheless, the lecturer states that monitoring magnitude of fishers and checking whether they follow the regulation is impossible although reducing the time is possible idea. In fact, government is capable of the checking and regulating if they set the device to the nets.
Finally, the author claims that some bigger species cannot go out from the nets since the hole is not enough spacious. By contrast, the lecturer refutes this explanation by stating that creating the hole larger is possible since design of the device is easy to be altered. Therefore, it is not problem for the case and situation can be improved if the device is changed slightly by making a hole more spacious and providing chance to larger individual turtles.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 345, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ng and catching thousands of the turtles . Furthermore, she explains that the redu...
^^
Line 3, column 477, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...shing industry but not individual boat. Secondly, in the reading passage, it is ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, if, moreover, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 10.4613686534 220% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1454.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 282.0 270.72406181 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15602836879 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09790868904 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6787948344 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.528368794326 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 450.0 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.4758832201 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.9333333333 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.33333333333 7.06452816374 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.222457998028 0.272083759551 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.067847885551 0.0996497079465 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0472352121578 0.0662205650399 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119928651025 0.162205337803 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0583822422573 0.0443174109184 132% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.