The lecturer contends that, although the three specific theories of the extinction of sea cow are seemingly acceptable in the text, we still could not consider them as the cause of extinction because they suffer several flaws on various aspects as is presented below.
The problem with the first theory is that Siberian people whose population is not too large did not need to hunt a lot of sea cows because they are extremely massive, which were normally 9-meter long and 10-tons, according to the professor. Therefore, the Siberian people could hunt a small part of sea cows which is enough for their food supply. So it is not convincing to attribute the cause of extinction to their hunt behavior.
Another flaw about the second theory concerns the ecosystems disturbances. The professor mentions that, if the disturbances actually happened, the number of other mammals would also decline rather than only the number of the see plant kelp. However, the evidence demonstrates that there was no report of a decrease of the number of whales at that time, so it could not be a food shortage caused by ecosystems disturbances which led to the extinction of see cow.
The problem with the last theory is that, the sea cow population is already quite small hundreds years before the arrival of European fur traders, so these people could not be a main cause of the extinction of sea cow, as is asserted by the professor. On the contrary, the last theory presented in the text is not persuasive.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 372, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'attributing'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'convince' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: attributing
...ir food supply. So it is not convincing to attribute the cause of extinction to their hunt b...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, second, so, still, therefore, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 7.30242825607 14% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1246.0 1373.03311258 91% => OK
No of words: 256.0 270.72406181 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.8671875 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64501299619 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.53515625 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 378.0 419.366225166 90% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 28.0 21.2450331126 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 76.9935062197 49.2860985944 156% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.444444444 110.228320801 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.4444444444 21.698381199 131% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.55555555556 7.06452816374 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 4.33554083885 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 13.3589403974 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.52 53.8541721854 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 53.0 63.6247240618 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 10.7273730684 168% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.