The reading and the lecture are both contradicting each other, in terms of colonization on asteroids. The author of the article states that colonization in asteroids would be beneficial in a number of ways. However, the lecturer casts doubt about the claim mentioned in the article and refutes all the theories explained in the passage.
According to the article, the first dispute focuses on the fact that since asteroids have a low gravity on their surface, it would be easier to land on their surface, and also, would require less fuel in order to take off a spacecraft. Additionally, spacecraft could carry more equipment to the nearest asteroids. However, the speaker negates the arguments presented in the article. Furthermore, he discusses that even though colonization on asteroids seems much profitable idea, scientists cannot undermine certain risks of living there. In this regard, it may cause severe health problems such as reducing bone density and losing muscle mass that is unavoidable.
Moreover, another passage highlights that mining valuable elements on asteroids such as gold and platinum, is a good idea and profitable business. Although the narrator refutes this by asserting that the cost of transportation through spacecraft would be much costlier in comparison to profit earned through the mining business. In addition to that, he presents the facts that increasing the supply of these metals would reduce the price of it, and consequently, further lower down the profit. Thus, this idea is not applicable.
Last but not least, the text explains that traveling back and forth to asteroids is much easier and affordable because some of them periodically come closer to the earth. On the contrary, the speaker again opposes the theory and describes that these asteroids would not stay at the same place and due to that fact, traveling back from asteroids would be a challenging part when the asteroids would go far away from the earth.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 147, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Although” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...is a good idea and profitable business. Although the narrator refutes this by asserting ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, furthermore, however, may, moreover, so, thus, in addition, such as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1648.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 317.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19873817035 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21953715646 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78994217303 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 145.348785872 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.577287066246 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 500.4 419.366225166 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.142900276 49.2860985944 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.714285714 110.228320801 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6428571429 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.28571428571 7.06452816374 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0997900443735 0.272083759551 37% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0329888427555 0.0996497079465 33% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0343758289677 0.0662205650399 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0595781651553 0.162205337803 37% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0214324101209 0.0443174109184 48% => 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: 14.4 13.3589403974 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.86 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.