Problems of sending human to Mars
Scientists are considering the possibility of sending humans to Mars in the coming decades. Although there have been successful manned missions to the Moon in the 1960s and 1970s, Mars is 150 times further away from Earth than the Moon is. Thus the project of sending humans to Mars would require solving an array of problems the Moon missions did not have to face.
One problem is that a round-trip to Mars and back is likely to take at least two years. The trip to the Moon lasted only a few days, and it was easy to bring enough supplies of food, water, and oxygen; but the cargo capacity of space vehicles is too limited to put on board the food, water, and oxygen required by a crew for a period of two years. Without those essentials, though, a Mars mission is impossible.
A second problem is that astronauts on the Mars mission would be in the zero-gravity environment of space for many months at a time. Spending a long time in the zero-gravity environment has negative effects on the human body, such as decreased muscle mass and lower bone density. Over the course of a two-year mission, the effects would be so severe, they would make it impossible for humans to make the trip without experiencing grave medical problems.
Finally, astronauts on a mission to Mars would be exposed to dangerous levels of space radiation, much of which comes in the form of charged particles emitted by the Sun. Earth’s magnetic field, which normally protects us from dangerous solar radiation, would not be able to protect a spaceship traveling in interplanetary space. Constructing a shield that would protect the whole spaceship from space radiation is at present impossible because it would add too much weight to the ship.
The reading passage has proposed three reasons to explain some problems that would happen during the project of sending humans to Mars. The professor's lecture deals with the same issue but contradicts the reading passage content by using three specific points to support her notion.
First, in the reading passage, it is suggested that the spaceship doesn't have enough space to take supplies of food, water, and oxygen, which are used for a two-year-long trip. In contrast, the professor in the lecture holds a different opinion that scientists can use a technology called hydroponic, which can grow plant in water without soil. And this not only can save a lot of space but also can imply food from plants. Astronauts can get pure water and flash air from plants.
The second point is that astronauts will have muscle mass and lower bone density in the zero-gravity environment for two years long. The reading claims that astronauts will take months of training to adapt to this condition, and scientists also use some technology to keep their health. For example, regular exercise can decrease muscle mass and some vitamins can help hold their bone density.
The third point the author states is that astronauts will be in danger of space radiation without Earth’s magnetic field. Nonetheless, the lecture points out that astronauts will expose to the Sun radiation, but it doesn’t have danger to humans all the time. Special instruments and equipment can help astronauts avoid deadly radiation like monitoring solar radiation, and with a small shelter that is shielded against radiation but doesn’t add much weight to the ship. Astronauts can do regular jobs and work most of the time. When the Sun radiation increase, they can hide in a small area that will not take up much space until the danger passed.
The speaker's statement, therefore, is in sharp contrast to the point made in the reading passage.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 67, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...age, it is suggested that the spaceship doesnt have enough space to take supplies of f...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 5, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'speakers'' or 'speaker's'?
Suggestion: speakers'; speaker's
...h space until the danger passed. The speakers statement, therefore, is in sharp contr...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, nonetheless, second, so, therefore, third, for example, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 5.04856512141 317% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1609.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 318.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05974842767 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22286093782 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5222105821 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.540880503145 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 466.2 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.8055817645 49.2860985944 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.266666667 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.93333333333 7.06452816374 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0657463710417 0.272083759551 24% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.026133178579 0.0996497079465 26% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0333995013783 0.0662205650399 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0343141973577 0.162205337803 21% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0242182428344 0.0443174109184 55% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.1 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.