Glass is a favored building material for modern architecture, yet it is also very dangerous for wild birds.Because they often cannot distinguish between glass and open air, millions of birds are harmed every year when they try to fly through glass windows. There are, however, several solutions that responsible businesses can use to prevent injuries to birds. One-Way Glass One solution is to replace the regular, clear glass with one-way glass that is transparent in only one direction. The occupants of the building can see out, but birds and others cannot see in. If birds cannot see through a window, they will understand that the glass forms a solid barrier and will not try to fly through it. Colorful Designs A second solution is to paint colorful lines or other designs on regular window glass. For example, a window could have a design of thin stripes painted over the glass. People would still be able to see through the openings in the design where there is no paint, while birds would see the stripes and thus avoid trying to fly through the glass. Architects can be encouraged to include colorful painted patterns on glass as part of the general design of buildings.Magnetic Field The third solution is to create an artificial magnetic field to guide birds away from buildings.Humans use an instrument called a magnetic compass to determine directions - either north, south, east, or west. Bird research has shown that birds have a natural ability to sense Earth' s magnetic fields; this ability works just like a compass, and it helps birds navigate in the right direction when they fly. A building in a bird flight path can be equipped with powerful electromagnets that emit magnetic signals that steer birds in a direction away from the building.
The writer claims in the reading passage that there are three solutions to prevent birds crash into the glass which are used as building material for modern architecture, but the professor argues in the lecture that these ideas are not efficient. Clearly, the hold different views on the same topic.
First, the author presents a viewpoint that birds will not try to fly through glass if people use one-way glass that birds cannot see in. However, the listening puts forward a different opinion that birds will consider the sky it reflect as the real one and fly into it. This is because one-way glass looks like mirror and birds don't understand what it is. Therefore what the reading states is refuted by the professor.
Second, the reading states that when painting colorful lines or other designs on regular window glass, the birds would see stripes and thus avoid trying to fly through the glass. While the lecture argues that the glass including some openings which can be seemed as holes by birds and they also will fly into it. And the unpainted glass are too small to light the room people live and work. So the professor's idea disproves the reading.
Third, the reading claims that people can use powerful electromagnets to guide birds away from the buildings, because birds research has shown that birds has an ability to navigate by earth's magnetic fields. While the professor contends that birds will still crash into glass because they use magnetic fields only when travel very long like migrate from cold places to warm places in winter. And when they travel in short distance, they use their eyes and light to navigate. In sum, the professor clearly points out the reading.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 231, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'reflects'?
Suggestion: reflects
...ion that birds will consider the sky it reflect as the real one and fly into it. This i...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 330, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...e-way glass looks like mirror and birds dont understand what it is. Therefore what t...
^^^^
Line 3, column 358, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...r and birds dont understand what it is. Therefore what the reading states is refuted by t...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 399, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...t the room people live and work. So the professors idea disproves the reading. Third,...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, second, so, still, therefore, third, thus, while, in short
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1412.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 289.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.88581314879 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.19942402154 2.5805825403 85% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 145.348785872 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.553633217993 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 408.6 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.103271464 49.2860985944 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.857142857 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6428571429 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.78571428571 7.06452816374 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.322391514875 0.272083759551 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100494686811 0.0996497079465 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0840313900836 0.0662205650399 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.196990701398 0.162205337803 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0472368505801 0.0443174109184 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 68.1 53.8541721854 126% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.08 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.63 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.