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 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 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 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 is on the reasons for odd sound. It provides three supporting ideas in order to bolster its position. However, the speaker says, the theories for strange sound were unlikely true. She refutes each of the passage claim.
First, the article asserts that the source of sound came from male and female orca whale. But, the professor denies this reasoning. She says, the sounds were not come from orca because the orca were living near the surface and submarine were in deep of the ocean. Also, if it was true then Russian submarine were detected the sound by its sonar.
Second, the reading states that the sound were caused by gigantic squid. However, the lecturer refutes this statement. She describes the Russian submarine were launched in 1960 and it had reported the sound for two decades after that. But, if the sound were made by squid then the sound was detected without break. Moreover, the squid is still exist today. Then, why there was a break in sound detection?
Third, the written excerpt claims that there was a possibility of another countrys submarine that were sleuthingly patrolled the area. The point is quite unconvincing with the narrator. She explains, if there was another submarine then why the sound moved around? Even though, the submarine was not needed to produce sound to being caught because it was possible to build soundless submarine.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 345, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'existed'.
Suggestion: existed
...out break. Moreover, the squid is still exist today. Then, why there was a break in s...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, still, then, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1157.0 1373.03311258 84% => OK
No of words: 232.0 270.72406181 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.98706896552 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.90276135726 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.2966939417 2.5805825403 89% => OK
Unique words: 128.0 145.348785872 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.551724137931 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 344.7 419.366225166 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 12.0 21.2450331126 56% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.8749969741 49.2860985944 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 64.2777777778 110.228320801 58% => More chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 12.8888888889 21.698381199 59% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 3.94444444444 7.06452816374 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.27373068433 281% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.13759878202 0.272083759551 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0452980993933 0.0996497079465 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.039695085386 0.0662205650399 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0893471194877 0.162205337803 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.023932515138 0.0443174109184 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.5 13.3589403974 64% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 67.76 53.8541721854 126% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.8 11.0289183223 62% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.77 12.2367328918 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 6.8 10.498013245 65% => OK
text_standard: 7.0 11.2008830022 62% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.