The Formation of the Moon.
The reading and the lecture are both about theories that explain the origin of the moon. While the former states that there are three likely theories to explain the formation of this stellar body, the latter cast doubt each one of them providing compelling arguments for it.
First of all, the passage explains the Moon's fission theory. It indicates that the Moon was once part of the Earth, and when this planet was spinning, the Moon separated from it by breaking off from the current Pacific Ocean basin. The lecturer, however, refutes this theory by pointing out two problems of it. He states that the supposed break would have destroyed the entire planet. Additionally, he mentions that the Apollo Mission found that lunar rocks were much hotter than the Earth, which invalidates this first theory.
The second theory is the co-accretion theory or condensation theory. According to it, the Earth's only satellite was originated at the same time that the planet from the original nebula of interstellar materials product of the aggregation of small particles. Nevertheless, the professor states that this could not have been possible due to the fact that gravitational forces would have fused all the particles together. Moreover, this theory cannot explain the reason why the Moon has a little core compared with the big one of the Earth composed of 50% of iron.
Finally, the reading claims that the Earth could have impacted another planet as big as Mars creating the Moon, which constitutes the giant impact theory. On the other hand, the academic affirms that this process would have created a group of moons, and it would have led to a series of biochemical processes that in fact never happened, such as evaporation. He believes that there should be more research to conceive more convincing theories.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 202, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'materials'' or 'material's'?
Suggestion: materials'; material's
...rom the original nebula of interstellar materials product of the aggregation of small par...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, second, so, while, in fact, such as, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1520.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 301.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04983388704 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51703175111 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.591362126246 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 452.7 419.366225166 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.0002603075 49.2860985944 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.571428571 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.64285714286 7.06452816374 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.165700192675 0.272083759551 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0541508663176 0.0996497079465 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0661794698182 0.0662205650399 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101187830598 0.162205337803 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0543769879681 0.0443174109184 123% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 13.3589403974 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.14 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 63.6247240618 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27 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.