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 orca 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 mate are similar to those that the submarines were detecting.
A second idea is that the sounds were caused by giant squid. Giant squid are giant 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 the 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 passage and lecture have a conflicting opinions about the source of odd sound detected by Russina submarines during the 1960s to 1980s. The article strongly postulates that the quackers sound was presented in several theories that discuss the source of the strange sound. On the other hand, the listening admantly delinates that the source of quackers are still in debate from scientists. However, non of the presented theories is appropriate.
First and foremost, according to the author of the excerpt the orca species inhabited the areas where submarines was hearing the odd sound, so it maybe the sound comes from orca whales male due to some rituals. Nonetheless, the lecture offsets these points by declaring that the orcal whale species are usually live near the surface not deep in the ocean. However, if the source of the quackers was from the orca, it will be detected by sonar.
The professor in lecture furthe points out that the submarines were detecting the stange sound for 2 decades, then suddenly there is no sound in 1990s. furthermore, the giant squids were living in that area for too long, so if the sound was from squids, the sound will continue. These claims refute the writer implications of how the strange sound was created by giant squids who live in that area.
The article lastly asserts that there is a foreign submarines with hight technology in order to make them visible to the sonar were patrolling in the area. Also, the frog sound was mistakely emitted from them. The speaker in the lecture counters these points by insisting the sound was changing direction and speed greatly. However, even now there is now way to build submarine with no engine sound as well as with quacker sound speed.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 52, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'opinion'?
Suggestion: opinion
... passage and lecture have a conflicting opinions about the source of odd sound detected ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 114, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...es inhabited the areas where submarines was hearing the odd sound, so it maybe the sound co...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 143, Rule ID: IN_1990s[1]
Message: The article is probably missing here: 'in the 1990s'.
Suggestion: in the 1990s
...ecades, then suddenly there is no sound in 1990s. furthermore, the giant squids were liv...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 153, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Furthermore
...en suddenly there is no sound in 1990s. furthermore, the giant squids were living in that a...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 52, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'submarine'?
Suggestion: submarine
... lastly asserts that there is a foreign submarines with hight technology in order to make ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, may, nonetheless, so, still, then, well, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1452.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 295.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92203389831 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42224679118 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.525423728814 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 434.7 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => 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: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.4723488854 49.2860985944 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.714285714 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0714285714 21.698381199 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.35714285714 7.06452816374 118% => OK
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 : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
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: 0.0986007296942 0.272083759551 36% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0381544683009 0.0996497079465 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0286783915999 0.0662205650399 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0662999246666 0.162205337803 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00924495765934 0.0443174109184 21% => 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: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.