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 thre | TOEFL IELTS GMAT GRE SAT ACT PTE ESL

Essay topics:

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.

Recently, there has been a ton of debate about how the moon was created. More specifically, in the article, the writer puts forth the idea that there are three possible theories that might solve this dilemma. In the listening passage, the lecturer is quick to point out there are some serious flaws in the writer's claims. In fact, the professor believes that non of the mentioned hypothesis is convincing.

First and foremost, the author of the article states that the first theory is the fission theory. This theory states that the moon was once a part of the earth before they separated long ago. Some professionals in the same field, however, stand in firm opposition to his claim. In the listening, for example, the professor states that the force mentioned in the fission theory can destroy the entire plant. Moreover, the speaker says that rocks on the moon have different chemical compositions, which opposes the theory.

One group of scholars, represented by the writer, thinks that the second possible theory is the Co-accretion theory. This theory states that the moon formed at the same time as the earth formed. Of course, though, not all experts in the field believe this is accurate. Again the speaker addresses this point when he says that the gravitational force would fuse the moon and the earth. He adds that they also should have similarities in the core's chemical composition.
Finally, the author wraps his argument by posting that the giant impact theory is the third theory that might explain the moon's formation. This theory states that the moon is the debris from the collision between the earth and another giant planet. Not surprisingly, the lecturer takes issue with his claim by contending that if the collision between these two planets happened, then more moons would be created. He mentions that this kind of collision would always result in many debris.

Votes

Essay Categories

Integrated TOEFL Writing

Comments

Essay evaluations by e-grader

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 123, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'moons'' or 'moon's'?
Suggestion: moons'; moon's
...the third theory that might explain the moons formation. This theory states that the ...
^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, then, third, for example, in fact, kind of, of course

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1580.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 316.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21620550194 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47873506928 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 145.348785872 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.528481012658 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 461.7 419.366225166 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 25.4055986831 49.2860985944 52% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 87.7777777778 110.228320801 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5555555556 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.11111111111 7.06452816374 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 9.0 4.27373068433 211% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.205128310426 0.272083759551 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0653415028125 0.0996497079465 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0612458113391 0.0662205650399 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125912767361 0.162205337803 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0395497213338 0.0443174109184 89% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 13.3589403974 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.42 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.78 8.42419426049 92% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.

Essay evaluations by e-grader

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, then, third, for example, in fact, kind of, of course

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments