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.
Now listen to part of a lecture on the topic you just read about.
Many experts believe that turtle excluder devices, also known as TEDs, are a very good way to protect endangered turtles, and that they should be a vital part of the equipment on any shrimp boat. Here are their responses to the criticisms that you just read about.
First, it’s true that catching a turtle is a rare thing for any one boat. However, there are, for example, thousands of shrimp boats operating off the southern coast of the United States. Collectively these shrimpers accidentally catch thousands of turtles every year. And these are endangered sea turtles whose populations are already too small, so harming several thousand every year is a big problem. So when considering the impact of TEDs, don’t think in terms of an individual shrimper losing a few shrimp, but rather in terms of how the sea turtle population as a whole is affected by the shrimp industry as a whole.
Second, implementing time limits to ensure that the turtles are brought up for air in time—that sounds like a good idea, but only in theory. The problem is that the time limits are almost impossible to enforce. There’re thousands of shrimp boats far out at sea, and government patrol boats cannot really monitor the time limits all these boats use. The use of TEDs is easier to enforce: all that’s required is checking the shrimp boats before they leave port and making sure their nets have TEDs.
Third, it’s true that TEDs can be too small for some very large species of turtle. But in the areas where they’re needed, it’s not a problem to create TEDs that are somewhat larger. The design of the TED can be modified easily without affecting the way that it functions. So once larger TEDs begin to be produced, this will no longer be a problem.
In the regard to the issue of some methods to save endangered sea turtle. The reading passage points out that those approaches will not work for some reasons. Whereas, the writer and the lecturer are apparently sheer contradictory to each other.
Firstly, according to the author, some shrimpers believe that they only save a few turtles when they cast the nets. Additionally, some shrimps escaped with turtles, the cost of losing shrimp is too high in comparison with the small chance of saving a turtle. The speaker, however, disclaims the point of view and declares that it may a rare thing to catching a turtle accidentally, but there are thousands of ships collecting turtles every day, and it leads to a big problem. Thus, using TEDs can make the population of sea turtle grow again.
Secondly, the reading holds that using time limitation for shrimp boats to keep their nets underwater. By contrast, the professor disproves the claim of the reading, demonstrating that it is impossible since the government cannot monitor all of the shrimpers. Therefore, the government only needs to check if the shrimper put TEDs on their ships before leaving.
Finally, the article asserts that TEDs are not effective because some species are larger than a TED and it cannot fit those of species, then the big turtles cannot escape from the nets. On the other hand, the listening maintains an opposite opinion that they do not have this problem in the area they need TEDs. Besides this, TEDs can be modified easily. once a big TED is produced, this will no longer be a problem.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 239, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...ble since the government cannot monitor all of the shrimpers. Therefore, the government on...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 356, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Once
...ides this, TEDs can be modified easily. once a big TED is produced, this will no lon...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, besides, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, whereas, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1314.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 268.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.90298507463 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04607285448 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57284169129 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.60447761194 0.540411800872 112% => OK
syllable_count: 394.2 419.366225166 94% => 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
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.467460047 49.2860985944 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.076923077 110.228320801 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6153846154 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.7692307692 7.06452816374 152% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.24960573203 0.272083759551 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0759659144178 0.0996497079465 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0571555963673 0.0662205650399 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126264120954 0.162205337803 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0562238681142 0.0443174109184 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 13.3589403974 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.14 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.