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 states three possible reasons that may would hade produced the mystry noises detected by russion submarines. On the conterary the lecture finds this idea dubius and rejects all these three reasons.
First of all, the reading states that the mystrious sound may be attributed to the male and female orca wales that normally live near the area inwhich the sound had been detected. Conversley, the lecturer casts doubt on this idea and asserts that these wales live near the surface of water, but the sounds are detected deep inside the water where submarines are submerged.
Secondly, the reading states that the source of these unusual sounds may be giant marine invertebratas called squids. The reading asserts that due to their soft body parts these creaters are not detectable by sonar technology. On the other hand the lecture asserts that historical records have shown that the emission of these sounds have suddenly been stopped at 1980s. The lecturer asserts that it is not reasonable that the emission of sound continued for 20 years and suddenly stopped at 1980s.
Finally, the reading states that the source of these sounds may be an unknown technology from another country that russsian technologies were not able to detect them. On the contrary, the lecturer rejects this idea and asserts based on the reports, the source of sound changed its direction frequently and very fast which is unlikey for military technologies. It also asserts that nomatter how high-tech are submarines, they have engines with rotating parts that are be detectable and well known.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 76, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he source of these unusual sounds may be giant marine invertebratas called squids...
^^
Line 7, column 468, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...ve engines with rotating parts that are be detectable and well known.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, may, second, secondly, so, well, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => 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: 1334.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 259.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15057915058 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01166760082 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42141895969 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 145.348785872 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.532818532819 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 399.6 419.366225166 95% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
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: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.4861510785 49.2860985944 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.272727273 110.228320801 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5454545455 21.698381199 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.81818181818 7.06452816374 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.116307556674 0.272083759551 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0490277213338 0.0996497079465 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.023482617877 0.0662205650399 35% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0719871103755 0.162205337803 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0238784395618 0.0443174109184 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.