Starting in the 1960s and continuing until the 1980s, sailors in Russian submarines patrolling the North Atlantic and Arctic Ocean would occasionally hear strange sounds. These underwater noises reminded the submarine crews of frog croaks, so they called the sounds “quackers” (from the Russian word for frog sounds). The sources of the sound seemed to be moving with great speed and agility; however, the submarines’ sonar (a method of detecting objects underwater) was unable to detect any solid moving objects in the area. There are several theories about what might have caused the odd sounds.
The first theory suggests that the strange noises were actually the calls of male and female ocra whales during a courtship ritual. Orca whales are known to inhabit the areas where the submarines were picking up the bizarre noises. Orcas have been studied extensively, and the sounds they make when trying to attract a male are similar to those that the submarines were detecting.
A second idea is that the sounds were caused by giant squid. Giant squids are gaint marine invertebrates that live deep in the ocean and prey on large fish. They are difficult to detect by sonar because they have soft bodies with no skeleton. Not much is known about giant squid behavior, but their complex brains suggest they are intelligent animals. It is possible they have the ability to emit sound, and perhaps they approached the submarines out of curiosity.
A third theory suggests the Russian submarines were picking up stray sounds from some military technology, like another country’s submarines that were secretly patrolling the area. Perhaps the foreign submarines did not register on sonar because they were using a kind of technology specifically designed to make them undetectable by sonar. The strange froglike sounds may have been emitted by the foreign submarines unintentionally.
The reading states that there are three theories that might be the cause of the sound that the Russian submarine detected deep in the North Atlantic Ocean. However, the professor casts doubt on these theories and says there are many problems associated with each of them.
First of all, the article posits that the source of the sound might come from calls that male of orca does to attract female orca. Conversely, the lecturer refutes this claim by saying that this theory might be possible at first, but orcas use to live near the surface not deep in the ocean. Therefore, the sound that the submarine detected deep in the ocean is not for orcas male calling.
Secondly, the author mentions that giant squad is the source of sound that the Russian submarine found. On the other hand, the professor debunks this theory by demonstrating that the sound was disappeared in 1980 and there are no any evidences that the giant squad disappeared at this period as well. This kind of animals have always been living in this area of the ocean. As a result, the professor argues about that the sound came from these animals.
Last but not least, the reading states that the sound might be for another submarine that came from another country secretly. This submarine had kind of technology that allowed it to be hidden. The lecturer opposes this theory by saying that there are no any technologies in the world that make submarine to move very fast and salient like this.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 241, Rule ID: USE_TO_VERB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
...y might be possible at first, but orcas use to live near the surface not deep in th...
^^^
Line 3, column 227, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...d was disappeared in 1980 and there are no any evidences that the giant squad disa...
^^
Line 4, column 253, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...es this theory by saying that there are no any technologies in the world that make...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, first, however, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, kind of, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 5.01324503311 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1213.0 1373.03311258 88% => OK
No of words: 256.0 270.72406181 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.73828125 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.23172031436 2.5805825403 86% => OK
Unique words: 125.0 145.348785872 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.48828125 0.540411800872 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 368.1 419.366225166 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.0944549771 49.2860985944 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.083333333 110.228320801 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3333333333 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.4166666667 7.06452816374 147% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => 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: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.1125163405 0.272083759551 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0532479807381 0.0996497079465 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0439203125152 0.0662205650399 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0807199240191 0.162205337803 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0308814606188 0.0443174109184 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.3589403974 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 67.08 53.8541721854 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.21 12.2367328918 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.39 8.42419426049 88% => OK
difficult_words: 44.0 63.6247240618 69% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.