One of the threats to endangered sea turtle species is the use of nets by commercial shrimp-fishing boats. When turtles get accidentally caught in the nets, they cannot rise to the surface of the ocean to breathe, and they die. Some people suggest that this problem can be solved through an invention called a turtle excluder device (TED) that is incorporated into the nets. A TED provides a passage through which the turtles can escape. However, TEDs have been criticized for several reasons.
The reading and the lecture are both about providing nets with turtle excluder devices (TED) in order to protect sea turtles. While the author of the reading states three reasons for the insufficiency of using TEDS , the lecturer challenges each of these reasons.
To begin with, the author states that it is rare to catch turtles by fishing boats. In the article, it is mentioned that using TEDs will result in losing shrimp every day in order to save only a few turtles, which is costly for fishing boats. The lecturer, however, rebuts this. She states that there are thousands of boats practicing fishing daily, therefore, the number of lost turtles would be a huge one. Moreover, she argues that the turtle's population is too small, so the loss is a big one. In addition, she states that this issue should not be consider individually, but collectively.
Secondly, the writer posits that decreasing the time limit of fishing could be a good alternative approach to protect sea turtles. In CONTRAST, the lecturer opposes this argument by mentioning that this approach could be applied only in theory. Furthermore, she says that it is too hard to monitor a large number of fishing boats, but using TEDs is easily and required just checking the nets.
Lastly, the author states that TEDs are not an effective tool for big sea turtles. It is stated that some species could not escape from the standard TEDs. On the other hand, the lecture argues that this is a small problem, which could be solved easily. She states that just modifing the design will overcome this obstacle, and it will not be a problem anymore.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 213, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...sons for the insufficiency of using TEDS , the lecturer challenges each of these r...
^^
Line 5, column 440, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'turtles'' or 'turtle's'?
Suggestion: turtles'; turtle's
...huge one. Moreover, she argues that the turtles population is too small, so the loss is...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 299, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...she says that it is too hard to monitor a large number of fishing boats, but using TEDs is easily...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...and required just checking the nets. Lastly, the author states that TEDs are ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, however, if, lastly, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, while, in addition, in contrast, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1351.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 278.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.85971223022 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44792109211 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.528776978417 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 405.0 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.322970829 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.5 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8571428571 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.5 7.06452816374 149% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => 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: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.136352134199 0.272083759551 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0519861723443 0.0996497079465 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0440469332859 0.0662205650399 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0846603282135 0.162205337803 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0412903356145 0.0443174109184 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.91 12.2367328918 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => 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.