In this set of material the reading and the listening passages are discussing the Altruism, given explanation of this term and examples to support the main idea. Nevertheless, the reading and the listening passage are completely contradictory. In fact, whereas the reading passages puts forward the view that altruism has not a beneficial or is not a selfish act. The listening argues the opposite and it gives the reasons for holding its opinion.
First of all, the reading develops the claim that altruism is a good act, a feature of a noble human being, which involves personal sacrifices. Nevertheless, we can find altruism examples not only reflected in the human acts, even the animals reveal this behavior. For example, in the meerkats society there are individual who are in charge of looking out for predators, they take that challenge and make a sacrifices due to their lives are on risk.
However, the listening casts doubt on the information in the reading passages, due to the fact that the altruism is not at all an unselfish act with a sacrifice. For holding this point of view the listening introduce us to the same meerkats society. The meerkast who is responsible about looking out for predators as hawks, has the opportunity of be the first to scape after give the alarm for the other members. In contrast, the hunter meerkat which are looking for food, are more vulnerable to be attack by the hawks, in this point of view the true animal with an altruism behavior is the hunter. The second example given in the listening is about the human who donate a kidney. They receive some in exchange, the society approval, a invaluable reward, and in this case is not altruism behavior at all.
That is how both, the listening and the reading passages support and give the examples about what is an authentic altruism behavior.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 286, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'meerkats'' or 'meerkat's'?
Suggestion: meerkats'; meerkat's
...veal this behavior. For example, in the meerkats society there are individual who are in...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 313, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'individuals'?
Suggestion: individuals
...mple, in the meerkats society there are individual who are in charge of looking out for pr...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 233, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'meerkats'' or 'meerkat's'?
Suggestion: meerkats'; meerkat's
... the listening introduce us to the same meerkats society. The meerkast who is responsibl...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 735, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...some in exchange, the society approval, a invaluable reward, and in this case is ...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, look, nevertheless, second, so, then, whereas, for example, in contrast, in fact, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 15.1003584229 126% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 9.8082437276 10% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 13.8261648746 65% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 43.0788530466 42% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 52.1666666667 75% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 8.0752688172 25% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1535.0 1977.66487455 78% => OK
No of words: 315.0 407.700716846 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.87301587302 4.8611393121 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.48103885553 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67186568022 2.67179642975 100% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 212.727598566 72% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.485714285714 0.524837075471 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 477.0 618.680645161 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.59856630824 42% => OK
Article: 11.0 3.08781362007 356% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 3.51792114695 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 20.6003584229 68% => 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: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.0453229438 48.9658058833 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.642857143 100.406767564 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5 20.6045352989 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.14285714286 5.45110844103 149% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.5376344086 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 11.8709677419 51% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0337159388354 0.236089414692 14% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0139066845305 0.076458572812 18% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0180277359237 0.0737576698707 24% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0211732186537 0.150856017488 14% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0177207166903 0.0645574589148 27% => 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: 12.8 11.7677419355 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 58.1214874552 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 10.1575268817 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 10.9000537634 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.01818996416 100% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 86.8835125448 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.002688172 115% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.0537634409 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
We are expecting: No. of Words: 350 while No. of Different Words: 200
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.