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.
The author and the lecturer are both discussing the benefits of a technology called turtle excluder device, or simply TED, to save turtles incidentally caught by shrimpers from death. The author criticizes the benefits of this device and mentions some points to prove his idea. On the other hand, the lecturer provides some reasons to conflict with the stated proposals.
First of all, the author mentions that during a month, every individual shrimper may catch only a single turtle while shrimping and using TEDs is not cost-effective in comparison to the loss of shrimps due to the application of this device. The lecturer, however, mentions that it is true that every individual just catches a turtle per month, but there are thousands of shrimpers working on the seas, and this results in catching thousands of turtles per month. Hence, she states that the whole act may cause a whole decline in the existence of turtles.
Additionally, the author believes that some of the other potential solutions, such as restricting the period of using nets underwater would be more effective and beneficial. The lecturer argues this statement. She describes that controlling and monitoring the working time of thousands of ships and nets is almost impossible and would not be time-consuming at all. Moreover, it is definitely easier to check whether the ship is holding a TED or not before it leaves.
Finally, the author mentions that the TEDs are not efficient when it comes to larger species of turtles such as the loggerhead and leatherback because they cannot escape the small space made for escaping. On the other hand, the professor asserts that there are no problems in creating suitable TEDs for these species and these devices can be modified in order to help these turtles escape from the nets as well as the smaller ones.
To sum it up, the author criticizes the TED and notes three reasons to prove it is not an effective solution. However, the professor effectively challenges the claims made in the article and rebuts the arguments.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 40, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
... Additionally, the author believes that some of the other potential solutions, such as rest...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, hence, however, if, incidentally, may, moreover, so, well, while, such as, as well as, first of all, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1705.0 1373.03311258 124% => OK
No of words: 341.0 270.72406181 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29722995808 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69995781259 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 145.348785872 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.516129032258 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 527.4 419.366225166 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.388358931 49.2860985944 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.785714286 110.228320801 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3571428571 21.698381199 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.7857142857 7.06452816374 153% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.182327129572 0.272083759551 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0547611763187 0.0996497079465 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0449255626332 0.0662205650399 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0880649031312 0.162205337803 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0487761302853 0.0443174109184 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.3589403974 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.76 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 63.6247240618 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.