Because of its remote location, only a few species of plants and animals thrived on Easter Island, and the water surrounding it contained very few fish. Nevertheless, beginning with extremely limited resources on an isolated island, the native people achieved a very advanced culture, as evidenced by the gigantic monolithic human figures that line the coasts, as well as by other artifacts. The complete collapse of this civilization is still a mystery, but several theories have been put forward.
One theory suggests that the natives of Easter Island cut down large palm forests to clear land for agricultural purposes, fuel for heating and cooking, construction material for pole and thatch houses, and canoes for transportation. In addition, hundreds of ahu, or large stone monuments, were constructed and moved to the coast on rollers made of tree trunks. Assuming that the trees could regenerate quickly enough to sustain the environment, they continued the deforestation, which, in turn, caused serious erosion.
Another theory presents a very different explanation for the decline in the population. Since there were few predators on the island, and an abundance of food, it is thought that rats may have hidden in the canoes of the earliest settlers. When the native people cut and burned trees, the rats prevented regrowth by eating the fresh shoots before they could grow into large plants. With little food and no wood to build canoes to escape, the people perished.
A third theory contends that the population was decimated by a war between short-eared and long-eared people on the island. According to oral history, a plot by the long-eared people to kill the short-eared people was discovered and the short-eared people struck first, driving the long-eared people to a ditch where they were killed and burned.
The reading passage discusses three different theories that try to explain why the ancient community on Easter island perished. However, the lecturer casts doubt on all the proposals made in the article.
First of all, the author of the article claims that people on the island cut forests to clear the land for agriculture and to use the wood for heating, cooking and construction of houses. Deforestation led to erosion of the land. Nevertheless, the speaker in the lecture refutes this argument. He mentions that a credible study showed that the inhabitants replaced the forests with grassland which would prevent erosion.
Second, the author contends that the abundance of food and the absence of predators allowed the overgrowth of rats which fed on the roots and the growing shoots from cut-down trees. As a result, no trees did regrow and the lack of food and wood did not allow the population to build canoes to escape the island. Consequently, they perished. The lecturer points out flaws in this idea. He states that although rats could have contributed to the disruption in the ecosystem, rats, also, could have served as a food source for the island dwellers before they were able to figure out a long-term plan. He indicates that rat bones have been found in the dumpsters on the island, along with chicken bones, which means people could have survived by eating rats.
Finally, the excerpt argues that the fall of the civilization on the island could have been due to war between the long-eared people and the short-eared people. The professor, On the other hand, challenges this point of view. He further elaborates that when the spanish viceroy of Peru came to the island on 1770, there were almost 3000 people. In addition, Sir James cook found the population was decimated when he arrived to the island. According to the native individuals, the war happened around 1680 which is about a hundred years earlier. Hence, this scenario does not add up.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 15, column 584, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
.... Hence, this scenario does not add up.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, first, hence, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, well, in addition, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 30.3222958057 162% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1652.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 332.0 270.72406181 123% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97590361446 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.2685907696 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54031758964 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 145.348785872 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.575301204819 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 486.0 419.366225166 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 54.8021413027 49.2860985944 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.7777777778 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4444444444 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.33333333333 7.06452816374 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.112093010979 0.272083759551 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0299197181072 0.0996497079465 30% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0275924041556 0.0662205650399 42% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0669472691421 0.162205337803 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00821208117552 0.0443174109184 19% => 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: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.57 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 63.6247240618 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 61.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.5 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.