Integrated Task : Dowsing
The reading passage and the lecture are both about dowsing. From their contexts, it can be stated that the prevailing discussion is about its efficiency in found underground water or objects. While the author of the texts claims that it is a successful tool to find water and objects, the lecturer completely refutes the arguments in the article. Hence, arguing that these explanations are faulty.
Firstly, it is said by the lecturer that the invisible frequencies are just claims or assumptions, in other words, they are empirical evidences. Furthermore, this concept is against the laws od physics and it is required ineffable evidences to support this theory. This directly contradicts the reading passage that denotes that the dowsing tools are able to detect underground vibrating frequencies and, consequently, precisely find water location.
Secondly, the lecturer safely assumes that the force is unknown to science and no experiment was able to detect evidence for its existance. This idea strongly contrasts with the article that mentions the force to explain the dowsing’s mode of action.
Finally, the lecture believes that experiments made with variable controls prove that dowsing do not work. It is stated that there is the same chance to find water if you do it with dowsing or without it. Besides, just without strict conditions dowsing maybe succesfull. The text, on the the other hand, states that although the manner of how it works is not completely known, it is a beneficial tool that helps a lot of clients and business.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 285, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
... dowsing maybe succesfull. The text, on the the other hand, states that although the ma...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 285, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
... dowsing maybe succesfull. The text, on the the other hand, states that although the ma...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, consequently, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, may, second, secondly, while, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1307.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 251.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20717131474 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98032404683 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76016557327 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.569721115538 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 393.3 419.366225166 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.4610997344 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.538461538 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3076923077 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.92307692308 7.06452816374 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0956106008139 0.272083759551 35% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0367885878821 0.0996497079465 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0472812947684 0.0662205650399 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0570918625139 0.162205337803 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0449780886877 0.0443174109184 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.92 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.