The article illustrates that there are three arguments provided to support that Robert Peary, a well-known adventurer and arctic explorer, did reach the North Pole, while the lecturer disputes those ideas presented in the passage with several proofs.
According to the writer, the National Geographic Society's investigation can prove it, since Peary's accounts were consistent. In contrast, the professor in the lecture maintains that the National Geographic Society's investigation was reasonable, but the conclusion was not objective. She advances the theory by saying that the report was written by Peary's close friend, who contributed much money to Peary’s trip. What's more, the investigation only last for 2 days, and they did not carefully exam Peary's accounts. Thus, the committee cannot prove that Peary reached the North Pole.
In addition, the writer holds that a recent expedition can support it, because someone made a same trek. However, the professor casts doubt on the opinion mentioned in the passage. She states that Avery may make the trip with same trek, but he carried less packages. To be exact, Avery dropped his food by airplane. In addition, the wether condition is different. Avery went in a good weather, while Peary went in an unfavorable weather condition. Thus, it cannot be used to prove that Peary reached the North Pole.
Finally, it is depicted in the reading that the photo can support his claim, because the sun's position asserted Peary reached in North Pole. Nevertheless, the speaker refutes that to calculate the Sun's position, the photo has to be very clear, the shade in the photo has to be percise. However, the photo Peary took they used the primitive camera that cannot focus and took fuzzy photographs. Moreover, it became blurred and faded because of the time. Therefore, They cannot use the photo to decide the location.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 414, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: What's
...contributed much money to Peary’s trip. Whats more, the investigation only last for 2...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 253, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun packages is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...the trip with same trek, but he carried less packages. To be exact, Avery dropped hi...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, so, therefore, thus, well, while, as to, in addition, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1575.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 303.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19801980198 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17215713816 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62195383629 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 145.348785872 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.561056105611 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 487.8 419.366225166 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.848089036 49.2860985944 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.5 110.228320801 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.8333333333 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.72222222222 7.06452816374 95% => 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 : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.207461455619 0.272083759551 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0581794213721 0.0996497079465 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0687907078987 0.0662205650399 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123014494502 0.162205337803 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0373398537058 0.0443174109184 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 13.3589403974 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.58 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.81 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => 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.