According to the reading passage, numerous birds are injured every year while trying to fly through glass windows used in modern buildings. The author presents some solutions that can be applied to prevent injuries to birds. However, the lecturer finds this ideas dubious and dismisses them all by providing counter-arguments.
First of all, the reading proposes to replace regular clear glass with glasses that are transparent in only one direction explaining that it would help birds to understand the presence of glass. On the other hand, the lecturer refutes this idea and points out to the fact that as this kind of one-way glass reflects like mirror birds would be confused by reflection of sky or trees on the glass and try to fly through it.
Secondly, the author depicts the idea of using colorful designs on regular window glass which would allow people to see through the openings in the design while allowing birds to avoid trying to fly through as they could see the strips. By contrast, the speaker argues that birds might try flying through the openings if they mistakenly consider the openings as open holes. Therefore, to discourage them flying through, openings need to be tiny which consequently make the room too dark for people inside.
Finally, the author brings up the idea of using fake magnetic field. According to the passage, birds have a natural ability to sense magnetic fields which helps them to navigate in right direction. Thus, building equipped with electromagnets can emit signals which hinders bird to fly towards that building. On contrast, the professor explains that birds only used its magnetic field when they travel long distance. For short distance, they only use their eyes and brightness of light. Therefore, using magnetic field would be futile in this case.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 254, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...s to birds. However, the lecturer finds this ideas dubious and dismisses them all by...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, while, kind of, 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: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 30.3222958057 158% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1517.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 298.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09060402685 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15483772266 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5038527135 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.563758389262 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 438.3 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.0200737444 49.2860985944 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.357142857 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2857142857 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.21428571429 7.06452816374 130% => 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 : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.293361013989 0.272083759551 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.09638045865 0.0996497079465 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0804889173911 0.0662205650399 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.178991656607 0.162205337803 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0570023103853 0.0443174109184 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 13.3589403974 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.