Both the passage and the lecture are regarding altruism. Albeit the author proclaims that Altruism is a type of behavior when you risk your life for others, and acquire no reward for this demeanor, the lecturer refutes this claim by contending that this behavior is not as perilous as the author accentuated, and in fact, altruistic conduct may engender to some rewards, such as appreciation of other people.
Firstly, the author asserts an example regarding meerkats, which demonstrate an altruistic behavior. The standing guard, whose obligation is to alarm other animals when a predator approaches, typically risks its life for other meerkats, and they usually cannot obtain any food. However, the lecturer opposes this statement by emphasizing that in fact, standing guards are the ones who are satiated.
Secondly, the author maintains that standing guards are less likely to escape predators, for predators notice them first, and other meerkats are in groups which is exceedingly supportive in terms of defending themselves against the predator.That being said, the lecturer contradicts this claim by mentioning that indeed standing guards are more likely to elude from the predator because standing guards realize the presence of the predator first. In addition to this statement, the lecturer also claims that not all the time meerkats act together, since they might panic.
Thirdly, the author illustrates an example from donors in order to display altruistic behaviors of humans. The author accentuates that donors give their organs to others so as to safe the life of others, and donors do not attain any reward from others. On the other hand, the lecturer rebuts this opinion by declaring that perhaps donors do not receive any financial incentive, but people uphold donors morally, which is also pivotal.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 242, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: That
...fending themselves against the predator.That being said, the lecturer contradicts th...
^^^^
Line 4, column 171, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...that donors give their organs to others so as to safe the life of others, and donors do ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, as to, in addition, in fact, such as, 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: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1533.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 288.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32291666667 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63306878286 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548611111111 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 468.0 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.51434878587 396% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => 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: 116.286069673 49.2860985944 236% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 153.3 110.228320801 139% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.8 21.698381199 133% => OK
Discourse Markers: 14.9 7.06452816374 211% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.161824360306 0.272083759551 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0710098593813 0.0996497079465 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0589452175257 0.0662205650399 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101798656773 0.162205337803 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0570583745191 0.0443174109184 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.0 13.3589403974 135% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 53.8541721854 80% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.17 12.2367328918 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.41 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.