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.
According to the article, sea turtles are facing the danger of extinction because of the shrimp-fishing nets. So, there is a solution to this problem and that is using TED nets. However, the article argues about the complexity of TED process in saving sea turtles. On the other hand, the professor thinks that the TED is a good solution and she provides the argument for each article’s critic point.
First, the article claims that it is rare to catch sea turtles through shrimp nets (one turtle per month) and because of that, TED can cost a lot of money for many shrimpers. Nevertheless, the professor opposes this point by showing that there are at least 1000 boats fishing shrimp each year, thus 1000 sea turtles would be caught each year as well. Therefore, the sea turtle population would be reduced because of the shrimp fishing boats.
Secondly, the article states that there is an alternative method to reduce sea turtles catching other than TED and that is through reducing the time for keeping the nets under the sea. In contrary, the professor debunks this statement by saying that this method is a theoretical method, not practical at all. She adds that it is impossible to measure the effective time for each net underwater in each boat.
Finally, the article demonstrates that there are some large endangered sea turtles species that can not manage to escape from the TED nets. Nonetheless, the professor disapproves this point of view by explaining that TED can be created to fit large sea turtle size. She describes that TED can be easily modified which would not be a problem for large sea turtles.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 76, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'turtles'' or 'turtle's'?
Suggestion: turtles'; turtle's
...hat there are some large endangered sea turtles species that can not manage to escape f...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, well, at least, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1347.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 278.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.84532374101 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55700750013 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 145.348785872 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.496402877698 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 400.5 419.366225166 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => 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: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.5517790565 49.2860985944 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.615384615 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3846153846 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.84615384615 7.06452816374 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.201974233206 0.272083759551 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0878746445558 0.0996497079465 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0701832210804 0.0662205650399 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131328844352 0.162205337803 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0535091391655 0.0443174109184 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 67.08 53.8541721854 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.85 12.2367328918 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.86 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.