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.
Both the reading and the lecture talk about a strange sounds that were heard by Russian submarines between 1960s to 1980s. The reading porpuses three hypothesis for this phenomen but the lacturer casts doubs on them and she thinking the reasons which states in the reading is not reasonable. Also she says that no one khows the realy cause of these sounds.
First off, the author porpuses a hypothesis in which the Orca whales during their courtship prodouce bizarre noises. But the lecturer refuse that and states the Ocra whales are living at the surface of water but the quackers were heard in the deep by Russian submarines. So she beleives this reason is not logical.
Secondly, the writer talks about giant squid that live deep on the ocean and feed on large fish. The writer beleives it may have a possible to make sounds by the squids to deceptive the submarines due to their astuteness. On the other hand, the lecturer states that the quackers are not heard after 1980s while the squids are alive in the ocean temporary.
Finally, the author states that the quacker's source may be generated by some military technology that may realated to another country's submarines. But the lecturer beleives no technology have been stablished yet to move quickly and fast as quackers' source do.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 151, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'hypothesis' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'hypotheses', 'hypothesises'.
Suggestion: hypotheses; hypothesises
...0s to 1980s. The reading porpuses three hypothesis for this phenomen but the lacturer cast...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 293, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...tates in the reading is not reasonable. Also she says that no one khows the realy ca...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, may, second, secondly, so, while, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => 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: 1079.0 1373.03311258 79% => OK
No of words: 221.0 270.72406181 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.88235294118 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.85565412703 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.36056023658 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 121.0 145.348785872 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.547511312217 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 328.5 419.366225166 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.4335602231 49.2860985944 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.0909090909 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0909090909 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.09090909091 7.06452816374 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.101664928612 0.272083759551 37% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0420199795658 0.0996497079465 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0577712364964 0.0662205650399 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0584491484062 0.162205337803 36% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0456197507945 0.0443174109184 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.3589403974 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.02 12.2367328918 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.27 8.42419426049 86% => OK
difficult_words: 37.0 63.6247240618 58% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.