The trend of salinity's increase, is the focus of both the writer and the professor. In the writing, three suggestions, including desalination facilities, ocean water, and constructing walls, have been elaborated. The professor, however, claims that these recommendations are not convincing.
As opposed to the writer's idea that building special desalination facilities can cause the water to evaporate, then the water return to the lake, and salt would be left behind, so the high levels of salt would be reduced, the professor states that there would be other problems by using this way. She advances the theory by saying that the leftover would include some toxic chemicals, if these chemicals went out into the air, it would harm human health.
The professor continues to discredit the writing's assertion that using ocean water to dilute the level of the salt, by examining the fact that it is not practical. In detail, she points out that the local government doesn't have enough resources to build such long pipelines or canals, because it is too expensive.
It is the professor's third argument that the walls would be unreliable and cannot build for so long, which contradicts the view of the writer that constructing walls is an excellent way to divide the lake and reduce the main section's salt level of the lake. To explore deeper, the professor contends that this place has frequent earth activities, which can eventually destroy the walls, and so the main section and the small section will be mixed again, which can not reach the aim.
An apparent divide exists between the writer and the professor on the ways of reducing the high salt levels.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 19, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...re not convincing. As opposed to the writers idea that building special desalination...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 42, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writings'' or 'writing's'?
Suggestion: writings'; writing's
...he professor continues to discredit the writings assertion that using ocean water to dil...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 217, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...he points out that the local government doesnt have enough resources to build such lon...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, so, then, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1392.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 276.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04347826087 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07593519647 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63748207562 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.565217391304 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 412.2 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => 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: 27.0 21.2450331126 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 69.6488334432 49.2860985944 141% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.2 110.228320801 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.6 21.698381199 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.8 7.06452816374 40% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.171403191387 0.272083759551 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0612116466322 0.0996497079465 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0642078706271 0.0662205650399 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0839366277318 0.162205337803 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0388902697956 0.0443174109184 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 13.3589403974 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 53.8541721854 98% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 11.0289183223 114% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.98 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.498013245 122% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.