Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on specific points made in the reading passage.
The article states that the progressive decimation and in effect extinction of the Steller's sea cow was due to the overhunting of human being and it upholds three reasons as support. However, the professor explains that the reasons ascribed upon extinction are not exact, rather they are meaningless and he refutes all three of the reasons with proper logic.
First the reading claims that sea cow was annihilated by dint of the overhunting by the native Siberian people as they were the predominant people at 17th century at that time. Moreover according to this theory, as there were no other species like that rife so there were significant chances of extinction by them. Here it is also referable that harsh environment didn't suppress sea cow as they tolerated and easily were habituated to it. Turning to the other side of the logic, the professor refutes by saying that obviously such full extinction is only possible by the huge number of people. What he means by this is that at that time density of Siberian people was very lower and it is well-substantiated. Besides, the height of sea cow is 9meter and weighs 10 ton. As a result it is quite onerous that so easily small population of Siberia engrossed it.
Second, the article posits that disruption of the organized ecosystem was the prime source of extinction since sea cow lived on kelp which was totally degraded by the harsh environment. Therefore, it can be said, the main source of food, kelp was decimated by imbalance of ecology which caused their ruins. On the other hand, the lecture says that by far it is well know that if kelp was decimated, so obviously others plants were also annihilated. In consideration of it, whale's main food was also destroyed but it was present then. Actually it provides evidence that ecosystem disruption is an illogical way to make it a fake conclusion.
Third, the reading says that at the 1741 suddenly European trade was extensive and those people were very fond of hunting. Which is why they might hunt sea cow myriad that caused this disruption. In this logic, the professor is very obstinate to accord in it. Eventually he says that sea cow's progressive decrement was result of the previous decade of 1700. That's why it is a hard nut to crack to say wittingly that European people are liable to do this. Rather he says that in the meantime of 1741 the density of sea cow was very negligible. So European trader's hunting might not be an ideal and prime reason to their extinction.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 178, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Moreover,
...nt people at 17th century at that time. Moreover according to this theory, as there were...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 365, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...s also referable that harsh environment didnt suppress sea cow as they tolerated and ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 770, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...of sea cow is 9meter and weighs 10 ton. As a result it is quite onerous that so ea...
^^
Line 7, column 367, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'known'.
Suggestion: known
...the lecture says that by far it is well know that if kelp was decimated, so obviousl...
^^^^
Line 11, column 289, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'cows'' or 'cow's'?
Suggestion: cows'; cow's
...cord in it. Eventually he says that sea cows progressive decrement was result of the...
^^^^
Line 11, column 359, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: That's
... result of the previous decade of 1700. Thats why it is a hard nut to crack to say wi...
^^^^^
Line 11, column 456, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Rather,
... European people are liable to do this. Rather he says that in the meantime of 1741 th...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, besides, but, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, then, therefore, third, well, as to, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 15.1003584229 232% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 9.8082437276 31% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 13.8261648746 65% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 11.0286738351 199% => OK
Pronoun: 50.0 43.0788530466 116% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 52.1666666667 104% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 8.0752688172 211% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2073.0 1977.66487455 105% => OK
No of words: 433.0 407.700716846 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.78752886836 4.8611393121 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56165014514 4.48103885553 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66360962403 2.67179642975 100% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 212.727598566 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.484988452656 0.524837075471 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 646.2 618.680645161 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 9.59856630824 10% => OK
Article: 9.0 3.08781362007 291% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.6003584229 102% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.5037030348 48.9658058833 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.7142857143 100.406767564 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.619047619 20.6045352989 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.61904761905 5.45110844103 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.5376344086 126% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 11.8709677419 51% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 3.85842293907 285% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0411127150954 0.236089414692 17% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0135311564681 0.076458572812 18% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0180449241857 0.0737576698707 24% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0301122838458 0.150856017488 20% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0149602223882 0.0645574589148 23% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 11.7677419355 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 58.1214874552 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.1575268817 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.5 10.9000537634 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.17 8.01818996416 102% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 86.8835125448 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.002688172 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.0537634409 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.247311828 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
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.