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.
First, some shrimpers (shrimp fishers) argue that turtles get trapped only rarely: it is estimated that on average, one shrimp boat accidentally catches about one turtle every month. On the other hand, using TEDs costs the shrimpers some of their catch. Every time the shrimpers cast the nets, a certain percentage of shrimp manage to escape through the turtle passages. The shrimpers complain that the cost of losing shrimp on a daily basis is too high in comparison with the small chance of saving one turtle.
Second, there are alternative methods of protecting sea turtles that may be more effective than TEDs. One method that can be used is shortening the time limit that shrimp boats are allowed to keep their nets underwater. When the time limit is reached, the nets have to be pulled up to the surface, allowing any turtles caught in the net to get air and also giving shrimpers the opportunity to release the turtles from the nets.
Third, TEDs are not effective for larger species of endangered sea turtles. Some species like loggerhead and leatherback turtles can grow to be quite large and cannot fit through the escape passage that standard TEDs provide. Such turtles cannot escape from the nets even if the nets are equipped with TEDs.
Based on the given materials, the article as well as the lectuer disscusses use of a device called turtle excluder device to save sea turtles from caughting in commercial shrimp-fishing bouats. The author states that the use of this instrument is not effective and critisizes it. That being said, the lecturer provides several ideas to repudiate this claim.
Initially, it is alleged in the reading that turtles are caught in nets rarely, once in a month for each fishing boat, while using this apparatus results in loosing most of the catch to save only one turtle. However, the lecturer asserts that instead of looking at it individually, while the turtles are caught occasionaly, we should concider thousends of fishing boat are out in the sea. So consequently a lot of turtules are captured in their nets yearly an at the same time these are endangered species so this hurts the specie. So it is not a correct illustration to just say turtles are cought in nets rarely.
Second, the writer proclaims that alternative ways are more effective. The reading suggests that the time of keeping a net in the water can works as an alternative. Yet again, the lecturer explains that allbeit this can work in theory, in real life it is not possible to force fishing boats to do so since it is hard to monitor. she alludes to the fact that we can just check to see if the boats are equiped with turtle excluders when they leave shores and as a reesult it is more effective. As a result it is not an implementable way.
The final point of contention between the listening and reading passages is tutrle excluders are not useful for some bigger species. The auther states that some tutrles grow to big sizes and even escaping from TED is impossible for them. On the other hand, The lecturer mentions that we can modify TED to suit our porpuse so where it is necessary, ships can use TEDs with bigger holes in them.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 141, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[2]
Message: The verb 'can' requires the base form of the verb: 'work'
Suggestion: work
... time of keeping a net in the water can works as an alternative. Yet again, the lectu...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 330, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: She
...s to do so since it is hard to monitor. she alludes to the fact that we can just ch...
^^^
Line 9, column 493, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... and as a reesult it is more effective. As a result it is not an implementable way...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, however, if, look, second, so, well, while, as to, as a result, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 22.412803532 152% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => 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: 1583.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 338.0 270.72406181 125% => OK
Chars per words: 4.68343195266 5.08290768461 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28774723029 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57707932325 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 145.348785872 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.544378698225 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 499.5 419.366225166 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.565923124 49.2860985944 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.533333333 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5333333333 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.13333333333 7.06452816374 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.212496790144 0.272083759551 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0612587290675 0.0996497079465 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0575950768258 0.0662205650399 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118946063924 0.162205337803 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0561506728175 0.0443174109184 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.16 12.2367328918 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 63.6247240618 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.