The belief that animals can sense an earthquake before it occurs has been held since at least the ancient Greeks. 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 researchers 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 when the authorities ordered the evacuation of the city of Haicheng, just a few days before a 7.3 magnitude quake, thus saving the lives of thousands of people.
The reading and the lecture are both discussing the connection between the animals' behaviour and earthquakes. The author of the article claims, that some changes, in how different types of animals behave, have a strong connection with future earthquakes. However, the lecturer claims that those factors are not relevant to each other and are mostly coincidences.
First and foremost, the article mentions that animals have better capacity of feeling any fluctuations in earth and therefore can have an unpredictable or unusual reaction to them. The author of the article provide readers with examples of constant dog's barking or wild animals starting to go out of their dwellings and becoming more open to human beings. Nevertheless, this argument is challenged by the lecturer. She is convinced that such statements are based on weak evidences and aren't proved by any scientific researches. However, she supports the fact that animals have better sensors and are superior to people in this aspect. She also states that animals tend to have a strange behaviour every now and then, and relevance to earthquakes is just a coincidence.
Secondly, the author suggests that animals are often get missed before the earthquakes, which can also have a connection. The lecturer, alas, asserts that those cases were examined by scholars, who proved that there was no connection between those occasions.
Finally, the author contends that there was a case which occured in China a few decades ago, when an efficient usage of animals' ability to predict earthquakes was shown. In contrast, the lecturer's stance is that there turned out to be a warning made by impulses in earth crust, which often are occured and spotted before earthquakes.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 76, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'animals'' or 'animal's'?
Suggestion: animals'; animal's
...h discussing the connection between the animals behaviour and earthquakes. The author o...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 486, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
...tements are based on weak evidences and arent proved by any scientific researches. Ho...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 698, Rule ID: EVERY_NOW_AND_THEN[1]
Message: Use simply 'now and then'.
Suggestion: now and then
...nimals tend to have a strange behaviour every now and then, and relevance to earthquakes is just a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 188, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lecturers'' or 'lecturer's'?
Suggestion: lecturers'; lecturer's
...earthquakes was shown. In contrast, the lecturers stance is that there turned out to be a...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, well, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1459.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 278.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24820143885 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76235807255 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.561151079137 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 457.2 419.366225166 109% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.264406053 49.2860985944 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.230769231 110.228320801 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3846153846 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.07692307692 7.06452816374 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0541159957398 0.272083759551 20% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0209399903477 0.0996497079465 21% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.028217709062 0.0662205650399 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0370014385934 0.162205337803 23% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.032361171494 0.0443174109184 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.3589403974 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.28 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => 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.