The belief that animals can sense an earthquake before it occurs has been held since ancient times. Countries such as China and Japan, which suffer frequently from the devastation brought about by seismic disturbances, have a long history of attempting to use animals to predict earthquakes.
Apparently animals of all kinds act in peculiar ways just prior to an earthquake. Many animals have more sensitive auditory capacities than humans, and perhaps because of this, react to ultrasound originating from fracturing rock. Some researches have also pointed out that some animals can pick up variations in the earth's magnetic field occurring near the epicenters of seismic events. Examples of unusual animal behavior include dogs barking for hours and wild animals appearing confused or losing their natural fear of people. Some people claim that even fish, reptiles, and insects engage in abnormal behavior at this time. Catfish, for example, are reputed to jump out of the water onto the land, and snakes have been seen leaving the nests where they were hibernating. Such strange behavior occurs from just moments before to a couple of weeks in advance of the quake.
A famous example of the successful use of animal behavior to predict a quake occurred in China in 1975. Based on reports of strange animal behavior, authorities ordered the evacuation of the city of Haicheng. Jus a few days later there was a massive, 7.3 magnitude quake. Thus, the lives of thousands of people were saved.
Author of the passage states that animals can predict earthquakes prior and provides reasons to support his claim. However, Professor refutes authors claims and provides reasons to bolster her opinion.
First, author mentions that animals act in peculiar way just before to an earthquake. But, professor refuses the point. She states that animals do have sensory capacity but they predicting the earthquake was never proved scientifically. She also see this to be an anictodal and explains that, people usually try to remember and connect the situations what happened before such disasters. Animals might behave unusual time to time, people might not consider this behaviour if everything goes well. But, when such disasters occur they connect this peculiar behaviour with the activity which happened. Also, professor states that stories provide fanciful narrations on animals which people tend to believe in such scenarios.
Second, author explains a famous example of animals predicting the earthquake in China in 1975 which saved lives of thousands of people. However, professor says that experiments conducted in California on connectivity between animals behaviour and earthquakes have a negative results when compared with authors statement. She explains that outcome of the experiment speaks that unusual behaviour of animals or animals missing few days before such natural calamities have connectivity with earthquakes. In addition, she states that rather than animals peculiar behaviour it is the sharks and environmental studies helped to understand the situation in China and therefore authorities have evacuated the area prior the disaster occurred.
In conclusion, professor provides valid reasons to support her opinion. Thus, we can see the reason which author are rather based on assumptions. Therefore, professor sums up saying that animals behaviour have no connectivity with the natural calamities and they cannot foresee the disasters that might occur.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 247, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[3]
Message: The pronoun 'She' must be used with a third-person verb: 'sees'.
Suggestion: sees
...s never proved scientifically. She also see this to be an anictodal and explains th...
^^^
Line 7, column 188, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'animals'' or 'animal's'?
Suggestion: animals'; animal's
...herefore, professor sums up saying that animals behaviour have no connectivity with the...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, second, so, therefore, thus, well, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 10.4613686534 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1687.0 1373.03311258 123% => OK
No of words: 295.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.7186440678 5.08290768461 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75583004793 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 145.348785872 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.542372881356 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 519.3 419.366225166 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 0.0 8.23620309051 0% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.9896353834 49.2860985944 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.4375 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4375 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.75 7.06452816374 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.165788899674 0.272083759551 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0613939044302 0.0996497079465 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0352941381396 0.0662205650399 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103071627345 0.162205337803 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0390996939808 0.0443174109184 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.3589403974 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 53.8541721854 67% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.9 12.2367328918 130% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.03 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.