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.
Both the reading and the lecture are about "asteroids colonization". In this set of materials, the writer's postulates that establishing human colonies on asteroids would be a best option and provides three reasons to endorse its idea. On the other hand, the professor states that the reasons mentioned in the reading are not practical and gainsays each of them.
First and foremost, the passage begins by asserting that since the size of asteroids is small, the gravitational pull is low. Therefore, the landing of spaceships would be safer in order to build a colony. However, the speaker excerpts that low gravity has health-related risks, for instance, loss of muscle mass and bone density. Moreover, astronauts have faced health problems due to their stay in spaceships. Hence, the living on asteroids is not practical if it endangers health.
Next, the professor further delves into details by pointing on additional factors associated with valuable materials present in asteroids. Mining precious metals on asteroids would be very costly due to transportation of equipment. But even if it became possible, metals will loose their worth due to extensive mining. Thus, this idea may not be as profitable as it seems. These claims refutes the writer's implication about increasing the profit for asteroid colonists. According to the essayist, asteroids are rich in expensive materials so it will become easy to support a colonization there.
Ultimately, the article wraps its arguments by declaring accessibility to asteroids. As they orbit close to Earth, it would be convenient and affordable for people to travel to asteroid. In contrast, the professor refutes this point by showing the inaccuracy of the author that the returning of people from asteroid is not certain. Since, these rocky planets change their orbital paths very often, it is not sure whether people will return to Earth or not because asteroid could even move farther from Earth. As a result, the travelling is unusual for a colony.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 178, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[1]
Message: Use 'the' with the superlative.
Suggestion: the
...ng human colonies on asteroids would be a best option and provides three reasons ...
^
Line 3, column 273, Rule ID: LOOSE_LOSE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'lose' (= miss, waste, suffer the loss etc.)?
Suggestion: lose
... even if it became possible metals will loose their worth due to extensive mining Thu...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 392, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...le as it seems These claims refutes the writers implication about increasing the profit...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 566, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ials so it will become easy to support a colonization there Ultimately the artic...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, however, if, may, moreover, so, therefore, thus, for instance, in contrast, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 30.3222958057 145% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1653.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 322.0 270.72406181 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13354037267 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23607819155 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80568879022 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.562111801242 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 523.8 419.366225166 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 0.0 8.23620309051 0% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 1.0 13.0662251656 8% => 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: 322.0 21.2450331126 1516% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 0.0 49.2860985944 0% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 1653.0 110.228320801 1500% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 322.0 21.698381199 1484% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 125.0 7.06452816374 1769% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 4.45695364238 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.147543861586 0.272083759551 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.147543861586 0.0996497079465 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0885009248198 0.162205337803 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0129884733652 0.0443174109184 29% => 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: 163.7 13.3589403974 1225% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -255.35 53.8541721854 -474% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 0.0 5.55761589404 0% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 128.9 11.0289183223 1169% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 13.95 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 23.82 8.42419426049 283% => Dale chall readability score is high.
difficult_words: 86.0 63.6247240618 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 56.0 10.7273730684 522% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 130.8 10.498013245 1246% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 24.0 11.2008830022 214% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.