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.
Both the reading passage and the lecture discuss the effectiveness of turtle excluder device (TED). The passage mentions three reasons that claim TED is not an effective solution to protect endangered sea turtle. However, the professor in the lecture casts doubt on all the reasons mentioned in the passage.
First of all, the passage claims that turtles rarely get trapped, one shrimp boat accidentally catches about one turtle a month, but using TEDs could cost some of shrimpers' catch. Nevertheless, the professor counters the passage by pointing out that there are thousands of shrimp boats in the United State, if each of them catch one sea turtle a month, there will be thousands of them get trapped. Thus, shrimpers should consider the whole image of ecosystem, instead of the number of shrimps they would lose.
Secondly, the passage suggests that there are alternative methods that are more effective than TEDs, such as shortening the time limit that shrimp boats are allowed to keep their nets underwater. Notwithstanding, the professor disagrees with the passage. She says that the method of limiting the time is impossible, since there are thousands of shrimp boats in the United State, the governments do not have resources to monitor each boat. Instead, TEDs is much more practical solution, people only need to confirm each boat is using net that incorporates TEDs before they leave.
Finally, the passage states that TEDs are not effective for larger species of endangered sea turtles, since they are too big to fit through the escape passage that TEDs provide. Yet the professor refutes the passage by arguing that TEDs can be modified easily, so this will not be a problem.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 156, Rule ID: MOST_SOME_OF_NNS[1]
Message: After 'some of', you should use 'the' ('some of the shrimpers') or simply say ''some shrimpers''.
Suggestion: some of the shrimpers; some shrimpers
...rtle a month, but using TEDs could cost some of shrimpers catch. Nevertheless, the professor coun...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, thus, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1420.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 279.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08960573477 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08696624509 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57113440595 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.559139784946 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 430.2 419.366225166 103% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.2007385771 49.2860985944 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.333333333 110.228320801 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.25 21.698381199 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.08333333333 7.06452816374 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.238765621961 0.272083759551 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0802075404725 0.0996497079465 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0632148629239 0.0662205650399 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130967343549 0.162205337803 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0706298159918 0.0443174109184 159% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.