Like many creatures, humpback whales migrate long distances for feeding and mating purposes. How animals manage to migrate long distances is often puzzling. In the case of humpback whales, we may have found the answer: they may be navigating by the stars, much as early human sailors did. What we know about humpback whales makes this a distinct possibility.
First, humpback whales seem to be intelligent enough to use stars to navigate by. Whales' brains have a high degree of complexity'a common determiner of intelligence. This suggests that the whales' brain power far exceeds that of most other animals. The whales' well-developed cognitive ability seems to provide a sound basis for the ability to use a complex, abstract system of sensory stimuli such as the night sky for orientation.
Second, humpback whales migrate in straight lines. Animals can maintain movement in a straight direction for long distances only if they orient themselves by some external objects or forces. Many birds and other terrestrial creatures, for example, use physical landmarks to help them stay on track as they migrate. Whales, which swim in the open ocean, cannot rely on land features; they could, however, rely on stars at night to provide them with external signs by which to maintain direction over long distances.
Third, humpback whales exhibit an unusual behavior: they are sometimes observed floating straight up for minutes at a time, their heads above the water as though they were looking upward. The behavior is known as spy-hopping, and it is very rare among marine animals. One explanation for the function of spy-hopping is that the whales are looking at the stars, which are providing them with information to navigate by.
The reading passage and the lecture are both about how the humpback whales navigate long distances. The author believes that it's possible that they could be using stars for navigation, like early humans. However, the lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article. He argues that the evidence for the arguments in the excerpt is not convincing.
First and foremost, the writer holds that the high intelligence capabilities of humpback whales allow them to utilize the night sky for figuring out directions. The speaker in the lecture, on the other hand, challenges this point. He contends that other animals which we do not consider highly intelligent are able to use stars as reference for travelling. For example, according to the listening, ducks can do that as they have instinct for this behavior. Hence, there is no relation between the level of intelligence and the ability to rely on stars for migration.
Secondly, the article posits that humpback whales maintain a straight line while migrating. According to the writing, animals could only move in straight lines only if they were using external objects, such as stars, as reference. Nevertheless, the lecturer states that humpback whales are able to detect earth's magnetic field and use it to migrate, not the stars as the author assumes. The lecturer further elaborates that part of the humpback whales' brain is capable of detecting magnetic field. In addition, the whales' body is sensitive to earth's magnetic field. Thus, this could be a compelling evidence for the speaker's argument.
Lastly, the reading passage maintains that spyhopping is a sign that proves that whales depend on stars. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the fact that humpback whales exhibit spyhopping not only during the night, but also during the day, which disproves the writer's conviction.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 617, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'speakers'' or 'speaker's'?
Suggestion: speakers'; speaker's
... could be a compelling evidence for the speakers argument. Lastly, the reading pas...
^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 262, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...lso during the day, which disproves the writers conviction.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, first, hence, however, if, lastly, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, thus, while, for example, in addition, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1559.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 298.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23154362416 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15483772266 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62682883329 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.546979865772 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 468.9 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.8221589425 49.2860985944 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.7058823529 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5294117647 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.35294117647 7.06452816374 132% => 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 : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.195109647449 0.272083759551 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0612098063615 0.0996497079465 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0435792655399 0.0662205650399 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116811139865 0.162205337803 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0347042439069 0.0443174109184 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 13.3589403974 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.