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.
In the lecture, the professor states how that there is no solid evdiance support that the well-known adventurer Robert Peary reached the pole north in 1909. However, this casts doubt on the reading which provides three evdiance of support to peary’s claim.
To begin with, the speaker claims that the commmittes investigation is not objective. In fact, the committee member were pear’s friends which funded his trip. Moreover, peary himself admitted that the investagtion was not through they only did it for two days. On the other hand, the text claims that the investigation was coundect in a proper way.
In addition, the professor asserts that Tom Avery simulation can not support Peary’s claim. Indeed, Avery’s slide was lighter than peary because Avery’s food was dropped by airplane. Moreover, Pear’s travelled in different conditions, and on the other hand Avery’s travelled in much suitable condition. This contradicts the reading which states that Tom’s was able to reach the north in 37 day which supports Peary’s claim.
Finally, the speaker asserts that the picture was taking by peary when he reached the North Pole cannot be a reliable evidence. In fact, the photo became with time faded, unfocused, and fuzzy. Hence, it’s impossible to calculate the sun’s position because the photo is not precise. This opposes the reading which states that the photo gives a strong support to Peary’s claim.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 86, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... there is no solid evdiance support that the well-known adventurer Robert Peary r...
^^
Line 4, column 338, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a proper way" with adverb for "proper"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...ims that the investigation was coundect in a proper way. In addition, the professor asser...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, hence, however, if, moreover, so, well, in addition, in fact, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1261.0 1373.03311258 92% => OK
No of words: 229.0 270.72406181 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.50655021834 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.89008302616 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81685452909 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 128.0 145.348785872 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.558951965066 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 360.0 419.366225166 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 23.5711038939 49.2860985944 48% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 90.0714285714 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.3571428571 21.698381199 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.35714285714 7.06452816374 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.194657242367 0.272083759551 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0744435802965 0.0996497079465 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0867673425651 0.0662205650399 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136876855784 0.162205337803 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0706527777902 0.0443174109184 159% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
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: 14.38 12.2367328918 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.43 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.