Although most scientists would agree that the Moon is critical for the formation of life on Earth, there is no consensus about the way that the Moon formed. Although there are several additional theories to explain the way that the Moon came into being, three hypotheses are commonly debated among lunar scientists.
The fission theory maintains that the Moon was once part of the Earth and became separated early in the formation of the solar system, probably while the Earth was spinning rapidly. The large piece of the Earth’s surface that formed the Moon is believed to have broken off from the Pacific Ocean basin.
The co-accretion theory, also called the condensation theory, contends that the Moon was formed at the same time as the Earth from the original nebula of interstellar dust and gas that comprised the young solar system. In other words, the Moon was a sister planet that formed, like the Earth, by the aggregation of small particles into a single, much larger body. This event probably took place shortly after the Big Bang, about 13 billion years ago.
The giant impact theory states that the Moon was formed from the debris of an indirect collision between the Earth and a planetary body about the size of Mars. It is estimated that the collision occurred about 4.5 billion years ago. Initially, there would have been a number of pieces from both Earth and the collision planet that would have orbited Earth, but eventually, they would have coalesced to form a ball of molten rock about the size of today’s Moon.
<span style="font-size: 19.36px;">The reading passage discusses three theories about how the moon was formed. However, the speaker in the lecture casts doubt on those proposals made in the article. He believes that all these hypotheses are not convincing.
To begin with, The author asserts that the moon could have been formed when a piece of earth broke off from the Pacific Ocean basin due to high speed of earth's spinning. On the other hand, the lecturer refutes this claim. He indicates that this idea is faced with two problems. First, Findings show that the moon was hotter than the earth. Second, Rock samples from the moon reveal a different chemical composition than that of the earth.
Moreover, the lecturer challenges the idea that the moon was born at the same time with the earth from the same nebula by aggregation of small particles to form a much larger body. Nevertheless, the professor in the lecture points out flaws in this argument. He states that the iron core in the moon is much smaller than the earth and accounts for only 25%. In contrast, the iron core of the earth constitutes 50% of the total mass.
Finally, the excerpt posits that the collision theory could be true. It postulates that the moon was formed when a giant body, about the size of Mars, collided with the earth generating massive amount of debris, which finally coalesced to make the moon. This does not ring plausible for the lecturer. He poses the question why only one moon was formed, and not a group of moons. In addition, another question is why there is no chemical evidence for extreme evaporation due to this gigantic impact. </span>
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, second, so, as for, in addition, in contrast, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1381.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 282.0 270.72406181 104% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89716312057 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09790868904 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66256333236 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 145.348785872 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.581560283688 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 403.2 419.366225166 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.5279014046 49.2860985944 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.2352941176 110.228320801 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.5882352941 21.698381199 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.70588235294 7.06452816374 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => 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: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.213273440009 0.272083759551 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0642168428775 0.0996497079465 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0554276962615 0.0662205650399 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131881890972 0.162205337803 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0314861370807 0.0443174109184 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.9 13.3589403974 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 72.16 53.8541721854 134% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 11.0289183223 65% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.84 12.2367328918 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 7.0 11.2008830022 62% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.