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 reading is about the possible criticism regarding the turtle excluder device (TED). It provides three supporting ideas in order to strengthen its claim. However, the professor says TED is rather a good way to protect turtles. She refutes each of the passage reasoning.
First, the article asserts that there is a rare chance of getting turtle in the bait. But, the lecturer denies this idea. In addition she describes, the problem is rather serious one because every year thousands of shrimp boat operating and captured thousands of sea turtle. Moreover, it has affected the sea turtle population badly. So, implementing TED is rather a greater good for sea turtle population.
Second, the reading states that the replacement of TED is more effective because the advantage of time limit. However, the narrator refutes this claim. She explains, the time limit appliances are literally impossible to implement. Apart from that, the TED is easier to enforce.
Third, the written excerpt claims that the TED is not a convincing way for larger species of sea turtle. The point is quite preposterous and incoherent with the professor. The speaker elaborates that TED is not a problem for the larger sea turtle because it is possible to modify. Furthermore, by changing the TED it is possible to use the TED for big sea turtle species easily.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 126, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[2]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: addition,
... But, the lecturer denies this idea. In addition she describes, the problem is rather se...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, regarding, second, so, then, third, apart from, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1127.0 1373.03311258 82% => OK
No of words: 222.0 270.72406181 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.07657657658 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.8600083453 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67366154058 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 122.0 145.348785872 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.54954954955 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 348.3 419.366225166 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.4281131035 49.2860985944 60% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 66.2941176471 110.228320801 60% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.0588235294 21.698381199 60% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.29411764706 7.06452816374 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.140873024783 0.272083759551 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.046310792631 0.0996497079465 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0447464770886 0.0662205650399 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.083121593594 0.162205337803 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.065363318883 0.0443174109184 147% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.0 13.3589403974 67% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.28 53.8541721854 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.3 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.2 10.498013245 69% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.