Scientists are considering the possibility of sending humans to Mars in the coming decades. Although there have been successful manned missions to the Moon in the 1960s and 1970s, Mars is 150 times further away from Earth than the Moon is. Thus the project of sending humans to Mars would require solving an array of problems the Moon missions did not have to face.
One problem is that a round-trip to Mars and back is likely to take at least two years. The trip to the Moon lasted only a few days, and it was easy to bring enough supplies of food, water, and oxygen; but the cargo capacity of space vehicles is too limited to put on board the food, water, and oxygen required by a crew for a period of two years. Without those essentials, though, a Mars mission is impossible.
A second problem is that astronauts on the Mars mission would be in the zero-gravity environment of space for many months at a time. Spending a long time in the zero-gravity environment has negative effects on the human body, such as decreased muscle mass and lower bone density. Over the course of a two-year mission, the effects would be so severe, they would make it impossible for humans to make the trip without experiencing grave medical problems.
Finally, astronauts on a mission to Mars would be exposed to dangerous levels of space radiation, much of which comes in the form of charged particles emitted by the Sun. Earth’s magnetic field, which normally protects us from dangerous solar radiation, would not be able to protect a spaceship traveling in interplanetary space. Constructing a shield that would protect the whole spaceship from space radiation is at present impossible because it would add too much weight to the ship.
The reading explores the issue of the problems that making a trip to the Mars is impossible. The lecture deals with the same issue. However, the professor argues that there are possible solutions to these issues which contradicts what the reading states. And in the lecture, she uses three specific points to support her idea.
First, even though the reading suggests that there is no enough cargo capacity of space vehicles to carry enough supplies for astronauts in two years trip, the professor argues that with the benefit of a new system, it only takes a small space and make it possible for astronauts to cultivate food in space and transfer the waste water into drinking water. Plus, they can have plants which absorb the carbon dioxide and release oxygen.Obviously, the professor disproves the counterpart in the reading.
Moreover, contrary to the statement in the reading that the long period in zero-gravity can cause serious healthy problem for astronauts, the professor contends that there are already lots of experiences like that and we draw the conclusion that the regular excercise can help stop decreasing muscle mass and lowering bone density.
Finally, the author of the reading asserts that the task can be dangerous because of being exposed to dangerous levels of space radiation, the professor claims that there will not be dangerous levels of radiation all the time. So the astronauts can live without a shield when the radiation is not active and move into a shield when it detects a active radiation. And a small shield won't add too much weight to the ship.
In conclusion, the professor identifies all the weakness in the reading and convincingly shows the central argument in the reading is incorrect.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 436, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Obviously
...b the carbon dioxide and release oxygen.Obviously, the professor disproves the counterpar...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 344, 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
... and move into a shield when it detects a active radiation. And a small shield wo...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, moreover, so, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1455.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 287.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06968641115 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11595363751 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65031997994 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550522648084 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 438.3 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 26.0 21.2450331126 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 101.199581876 49.2860985944 205% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 132.272727273 110.228320801 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.0909090909 21.698381199 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.09090909091 7.06452816374 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.0297205647744 0.272083759551 11% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0128626376715 0.0996497079465 13% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0193717978842 0.0662205650399 29% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0152414433807 0.162205337803 9% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0168519122358 0.0443174109184 38% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 13.3589403974 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.498013245 118% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.