The author states that environmental pollution is the more likely reason for the decreasing in number of sea otter and provides three reasons to support the ideas. However, the lecture emphasized that it's reaveled that the predation reason in the the main source of the declining in numbers of the sea mamals, afterall. She adds that there are some reasons which weakens the idea of environmental pollution as you would not expect.
First, the article asserts that there were known sources of pollution along the Alaskan coast such as oil rigs and other sources of industrial chemicals pollution. However, the professor refutes the reason by explaining that it can not be the reason because predators consistently are in the coast and they are not affected by the pollution.
Second, the reading passage claims that other sea animals in the coast are declining such as seals and sea lions. Conversly, the lecturer explains that predators are responsbile for the decline too. In order to human hunting, wales need to find another food resources. Therefore, ochras had to change their diet and they started small mamals such as sea seals and sea lions.
Third, the author argues that the pollution hypothesis can explain uneven pattern of otter decline. However, the professor asserts that even the uneven pattern of the sea mammals can be described by the predators. In some regions that is easily accessible for predators, the number of the otters is low. However, in shallow and rocky areas which are not accessible for the predators, the population of otters is high.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 244, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...s reaveled that the predation reason in the the main source of the declining in numbers...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 244, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...s reaveled that the predation reason in the the main source of the declining in numbers...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 311, Rule ID: AFTERALL[1]
Message: Did you mean 'after all'?
Suggestion: after all
...declining in numbers of the sea mamals, afterall. She adds that there are some reasons w...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 144, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'chemicals'' or 'chemical's'?
Suggestion: chemicals'; chemical's
...il rigs and other sources of industrial chemicals pollution. However, the professor refut...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 253, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...uman hunting, wales need to find another food resources. Therefore, ochras had to...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, second, so, therefore, third, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1315.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 260.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05769230769 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01553427287 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56065762171 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 130.0 145.348785872 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 402.3 419.366225166 96% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => 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: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.6061307627 49.2860985944 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.153846154 110.228320801 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.07692307692 7.06452816374 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => 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: 0.236944798844 0.272083759551 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0817950740493 0.0996497079465 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0567340727679 0.0662205650399 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134064132032 0.162205337803 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0443637686496 0.0443174109184 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => 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.