The formation of the Moon. Summarize the main points in the lecture...
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 that 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 lead to a series of chemical processes that in fact never happened, such as evaporation. He believes that there should be more research to create more convincing theories.
Comments
What!? 1 out of 30? That is
What!? 1 out of 30? That is ridiculous!
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: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1485.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 293.0 270.72406181 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06825938567 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13729897018 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49626449245 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.597269624573 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 441.9 419.366225166 105% => 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: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.9139767347 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.071428571 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9285714286 21.698381199 96% => 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: 0.0918517737294 0.272083759551 34% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0333201318163 0.0996497079465 33% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0352096146804 0.0662205650399 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0572446109659 0.162205337803 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.030980547304 0.0443174109184 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.1 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.