Pluto was first discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh and was classified as a planet at that time. However, in 2006, the International Astronomical Union designated it as a dwarf planet, claiming it failed to fulfill the requirements for being classified as a planet. While many scientists still claim that Pluto is a planet, there is clear proof that it cannot be considered one.
First, Pluto is too small to be a planet. There are many other dwarf planets that are of a similar size, some of which are even bigger than Pluto. For example, Eris, a dwarf planet, has more mass than Pluto yet it is still classified as a dwarf planet. There could be many more dwarf planets like Eris. So, it is not logical to consider Pluto a planet when there are other dwarf planets that are even larger.
Second, the orbit of Pluto has not been cleared. Scientists at the IAU claim that one of the conditions for being classified as a planet is that the body must have a clear orbit, which means there should be no other objects in its path. It should push any object out of its orbit. This pushing is known as the scattering parameter. However, there are other objects present in Pluto's orbit, so it does not meet this parameter for being a planet.
Third, Pluto has more shared characteristics with a comet than with a planet. This is because Pluto is partially composed of ice and would form a tail if it were to get close to the sun, a characteristic commonly seen in comets. Moreover, Pluto's orbit has a more irregular shape than the eight planets in the solar system. Its orbit is more tilted and oval-shaped, resembling the orbit of comets rather than the orbit of planets.
In the reading material, the author cites three reasons to support his/her viewpoint that Pluto is not able to be classified as a planet. Nevertheless, the lecturer in the listening material argues that those evidences which provided by the author are too waek to prove Pluto is not a planet.
First and foremost, the author argues that the size of Pluto is too small to be a planet. There are lots of dwarf planets bigger than Pluto. If call Pluto a planet than it is not logical at all. However, the lecturer offers an opposite stand that Pluto is not that small when compared with other dwarf planets. Although it is true that there are some dwarf planets bigger than Pluto, the number of them isn't that much. Moreover, the size is not a standard to classified planet. For example, we won't take blue whales and rabbits to classified whether they are mammals or not base on their size.
In addition, the lecturer casts doubt on the author's another reason that Pluto's scattering parameter doesn't meet the parameter for being a planet, demonstrating that scattering parameter is depend not only on planet itself, but also on the stars nearby. If there are two different planets, one has a giant star nearby and other has a small star. Then the planet with bigger star might has the smaller scattering parameter.
Finally, the author's third reason that Pluto has more shared common characteristics with comet, such as composed with ice and form a tail when they closed to the sun. This claim is also encounteracted by the lecturer who points out that it is not true that Pluto is alike with comet. First, Pluto has enough gravity to trap the gas to form the atmosphere. Second, there are different weathers perform on the Pluto.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 142, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” 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.
...ots of dwarf planets bigger than Pluto. If call Pluto a planet than it is not logi...
^^
Line 3, column 404, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...s bigger than Pluto, the number of them isnt that much. Moreover, the size is not a ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 102, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...reason that Plutos scattering parameter doesnt meet the parameter for being a planet, ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 191, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'depended'.
Suggestion: depended
...onstrating that scattering parameter is depend not only on planet itself, but also on ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, second, so, then, third, as to, for example, in addition, such as, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1435.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 302.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 4.75165562914 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1687104957 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44403388061 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.519867549669 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 435.6 419.366225166 104% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.184981623 49.2860985944 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.6875 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.875 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.8125 7.06452816374 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.242912809005 0.272083759551 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.094291402544 0.0996497079465 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0573572433297 0.0662205650399 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.145691786428 0.162205337803 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0714434376975 0.0443174109184 161% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.4 13.3589403974 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 70.13 53.8541721854 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.9 11.0289183223 72% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.27 12.2367328918 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.72 8.42419426049 92% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.