Passage:
Altruism is a type of behavior in which an animal sacrifices its own interest for that of another animal or group of animals. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness; individuals performing altruistic acts gain nothing for themselves.
Examples of altruism abound, both among humans and among other mammals. Unselfish acts among humans range from the sharing of food with strangers to the donation of body organs to family members, and even to strangers. Such acts are altruistic in that they benefit another, yet provide little reward to the one performing the act.In fact, many species of animals appear willing to sacrifice food, or even their life, to assist other members of their group.
The meerkat, which is a mammal that dwells in burrows in grassland areas of Africa, is often cited as an example. In groups of meerkats, an individual acts as a sentinel, standing guard and looking out for predators while the others hunt for food or eat food they have obtained. If the sentinel meerkat sees a predator such as a hawk approaching the group, it gives an alarm cry alerting the other meerkats to run and seek shelter. By standing guard,the sentinel meerkat gains nothing—it goes without food while the others eat, and it places itself in grave danger. After it issues an alarm, it has to flee alone, which might make it more at risk to a predator, since animals in groups are often able to work together to fend off a predator. So the altruistic sentinel behavior helps ensure the survival of other members of the meerkat’s group.
Listening Script:
You know, often in science, new findings force us to re-examine earlier beliefs and assumptions.
And a recent study of meerkats is having exactly this effect. The study examined the meerkat’s behavior quite closely, much more closely than had ever been done before. And some interesting things were found . . . like about eating habits . . . it showed that typically meerkats eat before they stand guard—so the ones standing guard had a full stomach! And the study also found that since the sentinel is the first to see a predator coming, it’s the most likely to escape . . . because it often stands guard near a burrow, so it can run immediately into the burrow after giving the alarm.
The other meerkats, the ones scattered about looking for food, are actually in greater danger. And in fact, other studies have suggested that when an animal creates an alarm,the alarm call might cause the other group members either to gather together or else to move about very quickly, behaviors that might actually draw the predator’s attention away from the caller, increasing that animal’s own chances of survival.
And what about people—what about some human acts that might be considered altruistic? Let’s take an extreme case, uh, suppose a person donates a kidney to a relative, or even to a complete stranger. A selfless act, right? But . . . doesn’t the donor receive appreciation and approval from the stranger and from society? Doesn’t the donor gain an increased sense of self-worth? Couldn’t such non-material rewards be considered very valuable to some people?
Que: Summarize the points made in the lecture you just heard, being sure to specifically explain how they cast doubt on points made in the reading.
The reading states that altruism is a type of behavior by which humans or animals exhibit selflessness by sacrificing themselves for the benefit of others. On the other hand, the lecturer suggests that the animals or humans cannot be classified as completely altruistic. The lecturer casts her doubt on the main points of the reading by providing two reasons.
First of all, according to the reading, meerkat is taken as an example to emphasize the altruistic behavior among animals. The sentinel/standing guard is portrayed as an individual which looks out for predators while other animals hunt or eat the food they had obtained. The standing guard is described as the one who risks its life to save the rest of its group from the predators. However, the lecturer disputes this belief by quoting a recent detailed analysis of the meerkat's behavior. She mentions that the standing guard feeds well before it starts to guard and consequently, it gains more energy to escape from the predator compared to the rest of the group. Furthermore, she states that, since the standing guard detects the predator prior to the rest of the group, it has more chances to escape quicker than the rest of the group.
Secondly, the reading notes that humans are altruistic when they donate body organs to family members or even strangers. Whereas, the lecturer disagrees with this statement. She points out that organ donation might be a selfless act but the donor will receive appreciation and recognition which will increase his/her self worth. She further talks about how some people consider non material rewards more valuable.
In conclusion, the lecturer is in disagreement with the reading about altruism and effectively challenges the points made by it.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 472, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'meerkats'' or 'meerkat's'?
Suggestion: meerkats'; meerkat's
...oting a recent detailed analysis of the meerkats behavior. She mentions that the standin...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 122, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whereas” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ns to family members or even strangers. Whereas, the lecturer disagrees with this state...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, furthermore, however, if, look, second, secondly, so, well, whereas, while, in conclusion, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1468.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 287.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1149825784 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11595363751 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73285814484 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 145.348785872 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.571428571429 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 437.4 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.9090169213 49.2860985944 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.857142857 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.5714285714 7.06452816374 150% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.20379257558 0.272083759551 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0638112663979 0.0996497079465 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0658125831683 0.0662205650399 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.104063489371 0.162205337803 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0595238875575 0.0443174109184 134% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.3589403974 97% => OK
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: 12.36 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.