Asteroids are large space objects made of rock and ice. There are hundreds of thousands of asteroids in our solar system. Though we often hear ideas about establishing colonies of humans to live and work on our Moon or our neighboring planet, Mars, some think that sending people to an asteroid would actually be the best colonization option for a number of reasons.
Low Gravity
To begin with, asteroids are often much smaller than planets, so they have lower gravity. When landing a spaceship, the craft would not be pulled as strongly or as forcefully toward the asteroid’s surface, making the landing safer than landing on the Moon or Mars; it would also allow a spacecraft to carry much more equipment needed to set up the colony. It would also be easier for the spacecraft to take off again, so the spaceship would need to carry considerably less fuel for the trip back to Earth.
Mining Valuable Metals
Next, some asteroids are rich in valuable elements and precious metals that are relatively rare on Earth, such as gold and platinum. An asteroid colony would be extremely profitable and a good source of these raw materials. The colonists or businesses sponsoring them could more than pay for the cost of their support by mining minerals and sending them back to Earth.
Easy to Reach
Finally, asteroids are a good option for colonization because some of them would be very easy to reach. There are a number of asteroids that periodically come within or near Earth’s orbit. Some of them actually get closer to Earth than our Moon. So these asteroids would be much easier and more affordable to get to and get back from than a planet like Mars, which would require a two-year trip in each direction.
The reading and lecture are about the colonization of people in the asteroids. The author of the reading passage feels that there were several benefits of people sending to the asteroids, and provides the three reasons to support. However, the lecturer explains this is an impractical phenomenon and refutes each of the authors' reasons.
To begin with, the reading says that due to the low gravity, it would be easy to reach the asteroid by the less pulling force. As a result, there would be easy to set up or colonize in asteroids, and finally to back to the earth. The speaker challenged on it by saying that although it would be easy for to and fro from the asteroid to the earth, there would be a high risk on it. Moreover, he claimsFins evidence of losing muscles and bone density loss due to this kind of activity.
Secondly, the article posits that due to the high amount of valuable metals in the asteroids like Gold and Aluminium, which were rare on earth, the colonization would be highly innocuous to the people. The professor challenged on it by suggesting that the real case was different in the case of cost. Sometimes, there would be flexibility in the cost. Additionally, the cost of mining would be too high in asteroids, and moreover, when there would be high mining, there would more production, which finally reduces the cost of the materials.
Finally, the reading argues that it would be easy to reach on the asteroids. It elaborates on this point by saying that many asteroids were close to earth's orbit. On the contrary, the professor opposes by saying that these asteroids were closer and farther at different instants. According to the professor, when the asteroids were closer, it would be easier to colonize for different people, but when it would be farther, it leads difficult to return back to the earth
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 108, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun pulling is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...ld be easy to reach the asteroid by the less pulling force. As a result, there would...
^^^^
Line 4, column 149, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'earth'.
Suggestion: earth
...aying that many asteroids were close to earths orbit. On the contrary, the professor o...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 445, Rule ID: RETURN_BACK[1]
Message: Use simply 'return'.
Suggestion: return
...would be farther, it leads difficult to return back to the earth
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, kind of, as a result, on the contrary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 30.3222958057 175% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1520.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 319.0 270.72406181 118% => OK
Chars per words: 4.76489028213 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22617688928 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60721966149 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.460815047022 0.540411800872 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 468.0 419.366225166 112% => 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: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.0880936308 49.2860985944 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.333333333 110.228320801 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2666666667 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.4 7.06452816374 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0421768888166 0.272083759551 16% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0187016217133 0.0996497079465 19% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0206737723202 0.0662205650399 31% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0288219774491 0.162205337803 18% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0163902295918 0.0443174109184 37% => 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: 11.6 13.3589403974 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.33 12.2367328918 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.