Robert E. Peary was a well-known adventurer and arctic explorer who in 1909 set out to reach the North Pole. When he returned from the expedition, he claimed to have reached the pole on April 7, 1909. This report made him into an international celebrity. Though some historians have expressed doubts that Peary did, in fact, reach the North Pole, three arguments provide strong support for the truth of Peary’s claim.
First, the National Geographic Society put together a committee that was instructed to conduct a thorough investigation of Peary’s records and equipment. At the end of the investigation, the committee concluded that Peary’s accounts were consistent and persuasive and declared that he had indeed reached the North Pole.
Second, a recent expedition provides support for Peary’s claim that he reached the North Pole in only 37 days after setting out from Ellesmere Island off the coast of Greenland. Skeptics used to argue that Peary could not have traveled that fast. Since even modern snowmobiles take longer to cover the same distance. However, a British explorer named Tom Avery recently made the same trek in less than 37 days. In fact, Avery used the same kind of dogsled and the same number and breed of dogs as Peary had. Thus, Peary’s claims are not impossible, and he very well might have been telling the truth.
Third, there are photographs taken by Peary that support his claim to have reached the North Pole. Measuring the shadows in Peary's photographs makes it possible to calculate the Sun's position in the north pole. The Sun's position established from the photographs corresponds exactly to the Sun's position as it should have been at the North Pole on that day. This provides strong evidence that Peary reached the North Pole and took the photographs there
Both the reading passage and the lecture debates in relation to the proof of Peary reaching the North Pole in 1909 in 37 days. The writer mentions three arguments used to corroborate that Peary reached the North Pole. On the other hand, the professor in the lecture, disagrees with all the three arguments.
First of all, the passage mentions that the National Geographic Society had formed a investigation's committee to check Peary's records and equipment, which came to the conclusion that Peary reached North Pole in reality. However, the professor in the lecture contends this claim and argues that the committee formed had prejudice in the investigation, it consisted of Peary's close friends and people who funded Peary's expedition. Further, the professor mentions that they investigation was not careful as it ended in less than 48 hours and even Peary agreed to the same.
Secondly, the passage talks about Tom Avery who recreated the same journey as Peary and could actually in less than 37 days, which concludes that Peary was telling the truth. However, the lecturer believes there are flaws in the writer's argument. The Professor mentions that the Tom didn't have the same weight as the food was delivered by airplane. Moreover, the weather conditions experienced by Peary were much worse as compared to the Tom.
Finally, the passage talks about the photograph and the shadow created in the because of the sun made it possible to calculate the sun's position on that day and it supported Peary's claim. Nevertheless, like the two suggestions before, the professor in the lecture proclaims that this recommendation is not feasible because, the image that Peary took was fuzzy and faded over the years and even it was unfocused so the results generated from it are not accurate. According to the professor the precise location of the sun cannot be obtained in this way.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 84, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... National Geographic Society had formed a investigations committee to check Peary...
^
Line 3, column 86, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'investigations'' or 'investigation's'?
Suggestion: investigations'; investigation's
...ational Geographic Society had formed a investigations committee to check Pearys records and e...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 230, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...ecturer believes there are flaws in the writers argument. The Professor mentions that t...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 284, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...nt. The Professor mentions that the Tom didnt have the same weight as the food was de...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, finally, first, however, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1575.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 312.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04807692308 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20279927342 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6463550131 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.528846153846 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 482.4 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.8825622862 49.2860985944 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.153846154 110.228320801 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 21.698381199 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.61538461538 7.06452816374 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.194531677133 0.272083759551 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0701814594656 0.0996497079465 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0586606059066 0.0662205650399 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123116001831 0.162205337803 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0486399188679 0.0443174109184 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.3589403974 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.31 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.