Scientists are considering the possibility of sending humans to Mars in the coming decades. Although there have been successful manned missions to the Moon in the 1960s and 1970s, Mars is 150 times further away from Earth than the Moon is. Thus the project of sending humans to Mars would require solving an array of problems the Moon missions did not have to face. One problem is that a round-trip to Mars and back is likely to take at least two years. The trip to the Moon lasted only a few days, and it was easy to bring enough supplies of food, water, and oxygen; but the cargo capacity of space vehicles is too limited to put on board the food, water, and oxygen required by a crew for a period of two years. Without those essentials, though, a Mars mission is impossible. A second problem is that astronauts on the Mars mission would be in the zero-gravity environment of space for many months at a time. Spending a long time in the zero-gravity environment has negative effects on the human body, such as decreased muscle mass and lower bone density. Over the course of a two-year mission, the effects would be so severe, they would make it impossible for humans to make the trip without experiencing grave medical problems. Finally, astronauts on a mission to Mars would be exposed to dangerous levels of space radiation, much of which comes in the form of charged particles emitted by the Sun. Earth’s magnetic field, which normally protects us from dangerous solar radiation, would not be able to protect a spaceship traveling in interplanetary space. Constructing a shield that would protect the whole spaceship from space radiation is at present impossible because it would add too much weight to the ship.
What are the problems of manned missions to the Mars, is the focus of both the writer and the professor. In the writing, three problems, including long-time trips, zero-gravity, and space radiation, have been elaborated. The professor, however, claims that these problems are worth discussing.
As opposed to the writer's idea that a long time trip needs numerous sources, which cannot achieve by limited space capacity, the professor states that a kind of technology can solve this problem. She advances the theory by saying that there is a kind of technology that can grow plants in the water, so it would need little space, and this technology can recycle the water to save sources, and it can also absorb the carbon dioxide and release oxygen, which can benefit the astronauts.
The professor continues to discredit the writing's assertion that zero-gravity will significantly harm astronauts' health, by examining the fact that this effect can be reduced. In detail, she points out that many astronauts have already experienced many months in space, so they know how to use some technologies to reduce this effect, like doing exercise to slow down the decrease of bone density.
It is the professor's third argument that space radiation can be resolved, which contradicts the view of the writer that space radiation can be harmful to astronauts. To explore deeper, the professor contends that space radiation is not always dangerous all the time, so we can use special instruments which don't need to protect the whole spaceship by shielding the radiation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 19, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
... worth discussing. As opposed to the writers idea that a long time trip needs numero...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 42, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writings'' or 'writing's'?
Suggestion: writings'; writing's
...he professor continues to discredit the writings assertion that zero-gravity will signif...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 308, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...so we can use special instruments which dont need to protect the whole spaceship by ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, so, third, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 5.04856512141 277% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1312.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 254.0 270.72406181 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16535433071 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99216450694 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73390543883 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 145.348785872 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.582677165354 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 396.9 419.366225166 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => 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: 28.0 21.2450331126 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 63.1734824819 49.2860985944 128% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.777777778 110.228320801 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.2222222222 21.698381199 130% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.11111111111 7.06452816374 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0364041065219 0.272083759551 13% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0217345681296 0.0996497079465 22% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0276422105438 0.0662205650399 42% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.028830213538 0.162205337803 18% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.03126242268 0.0443174109184 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 13.3589403974 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 53.8541721854 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.38 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.