Quackers are certainly a very strange phenomenon. Experts still debate what the source of the sounds was. No one can be sure exactly what caused them. But these experts cite certain problems with all of the theories thatyou just read about. Here are a few of the arguments that they make.First, the idea that the sounds are caused by Orca whales seems plausible at first but is ultimately highly unlikely. It's true that there were Orca populations in the general areas that the Russian submarines were patrolling. But Orca whales mostly live near the surface of the water. The submarines typically remain deep in the ocean and should not have been able to hear the whale sounds from near the surface.Also, the Orca whales would have been detected by the Russian sonar if they were nearby. Giant squid may be a better candidate but one critical fact speaks against the squid theory as well. Russian submarines first detected quacker sound in the 1960s and reports of them continued for about two decades. But the sounds disappeared entirely by the 1980s. However, as far as we know, squid have always lived in the ocean where the submarines were patrolling and continue to live there today. If these were squid sounds, there would be no reason to suddenly start hearing them in one decade and then suddenly stop hearing them twenty years later.Third, the idea that the quackers were caused by a secret submarine from another country does not hold up. The sources of the sounds appeared to move around and change direction very quickly. Submarines cannot move or change direction that quickly. Also, all submarines make some engine noise. But no such noise accompanied the quackers. Even today, we don't have technology to build submarines that are that fast and have engines that are that silent.
According to the reading passage, a strange frog- like sound called, quackers, was sometimes heard by the Russian sailors in submarines patrolling the North Atlantic and Arctic between the 1960s and 1980s and the exact resource of producing it, was vague and mysterious and several theories had been asserted to detect the possible cause of that. However, the speaker finds all ideas dubious, which are not convincing enough, and brings up some facts to refute them all.
First, some suggests that the strange noises were produced by male and female ocra whales during a courtship ritual. On the contrary, the professor argues that these whales live in shallow ocean water, mostly near the surface, while these strange noises could not have been heard by submarine in the depth of ocean. Also, if the ocra whales were around the Russian submarines, sailors would have been detected them by sonar.
Furthermore, another theory to be mentioned here is that the sound were emitted by giant squids, the marine invertebrates. In contrast, the speaker underlies the fact that these odd voices, abruptly were initiated in 1960 and continued for about 20 years, and then finished, while giant squids during this period as well as after that are living there.
Finally, some suggest that these noises might be produced by some military technology, such as another country's submarines, which patrolling this area. Conversely, the professor dismisses this issue due to the fact that the strange noises detected by sonar were too fast and could change their direction quickly. Even today, we have not technologically devised and built a submarine yet to be as fast as strange noises and able to change its directions like that.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 425, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...would have been detected them by sonar. Furthermore, another theory to be mentio...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, so, then, well, while, in contrast, such as, as well as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => 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: 1440.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 281.0 270.72406181 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12455516014 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09427095027 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4786674858 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 145.348785872 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.583629893238 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 436.5 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => 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: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 28.0 21.2450331126 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 68.8288456971 49.2860985944 140% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.0 110.228320801 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.1 21.698381199 130% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.2 7.06452816374 187% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.122171106764 0.272083759551 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.048471688876 0.0996497079465 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0308008396284 0.0662205650399 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0753368525307 0.162205337803 46% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0332923542539 0.0443174109184 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 13.3589403974 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 53.8541721854 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.