Starting in the 1960s and continuing until the 1980s, sailors in Russian submarines patrolling the North Alantic 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 desinged to make them undetectable by sonar. The strange froglike sounds may have been emitted by the foreign submarines unintentionally.
Based on the given materials, the article as well as the lecture discusses strange sounds that were like frog croaks and russian submarines used to hear the during the period from 1960s untill 1980s. Because of the frog like croaks, russian called them "quackers" which was like it was moving very nimble while sonars were disable to detect the source. the author states some likely sources for the sound. That being said, the lecturer provides several ideas to repudiate this claim.
Initially, the author says, the orca whales were the source of the sound during their courtship ritulas since they are known to live in that area and males and females calls each other with strange noises. However, the lecturer wxplains that only at first this idea might seem plausable base on the fact that these animals patrols the ares but while the submarines are deep in the water, the orca whales have their ritual near the surface whater which make it impossible for people in the submarine to hear a sound from them. Also they are large animals that can be detected by the sonar.
Second, the writer proclaims that the source of the sound could be giant squads that live deep under water. the writer mentions that these animals have a soft body with no skeleton so sonars are not enable to detect them. Also they posses a complex brain which provides the ability to make the sound. Yet again, Although the existance of these animals deep in the water is in favor of the source of the sound, she underscores that quackers were heared during 1960s until1980 but the giant squids lived before 1960 and after 1980. If they were the source, people still should hear the sound since it is not possibe to hear the sound of an animal in one decade and not in another.
The final point of contention between the listening and the reading passages is the existance of some millitary technology. The author thinks that maybe some other country's submarine secretly was patroling the are and the spund were made by it but they had a technology to hide from sonars. On the other hand, the speaker explains that this idea seems impossible since the source of the sound were agile and was like it is changing direction fast while a submarine is slow. Another reason she mentiones is that submarines have a noisy engine and until now we do not have the technology to produce a smooth engine and also hide from sonars.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 334, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'disabled'.
Suggestion: disabled
...as moving very nimble while sonars were disable to detect the source. the author states...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 364, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...nars were disable to detect the source. the author states some likely sources for t...
^^^
Line 5, column 527, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...he submarine to hear a sound from them. Also they are large animals that can be dete...
^^^^
Line 9, column 109, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...iant squads that live deep under water. the writer mentions that these animals have...
^^^
Line 9, column 200, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'enabled'.
Suggestion: enabled
...body with no skeleton so sonars are not enable to detect them. Also they posses a comp...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 223, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...o sonars are not enable to detect them. Also they posses a complex brain which provi...
^^^^
Line 9, column 453, Rule ID: IN_1990s[1]
Message: The article is probably missing here: 'during the 1960s'.
Suggestion: during the 1960s
...e underscores that quackers were heared during 1960s until1980 but the giant squids lived be...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, so, still, well, while, as to, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 10.4613686534 239% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 22.412803532 165% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 55.0 30.3222958057 181% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1998.0 1373.03311258 146% => OK
No of words: 422.0 270.72406181 156% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.7345971564 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53239876712 4.04702891845 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.24133540014 2.5805825403 87% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 145.348785872 144% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.497630331754 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 620.1 419.366225166 148% => 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: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 21.2450331126 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 67.7863140685 49.2860985944 138% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.875 110.228320801 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.375 21.698381199 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5 7.06452816374 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => 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: 0.16965634815 0.272083759551 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0544302572054 0.0996497079465 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0506965917682 0.0662205650399 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.109602744294 0.162205337803 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0276841405853 0.0443174109184 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.3589403974 105% => 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: 10.45 12.2367328918 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.96 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.498013245 118% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.