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 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 frog like sounds may have been emitted by the foreign submarines unintentionally.
The article argues three possible reasons for the noise heard by Russian submarines from 1960 to 1980. The lecture refutes the explanations provided by the article for the following reasons.
Firstly, the article claims that these sounds resemble the sound of female ocra whales trying to attract males during a courtship ritual. On the other hand, the lecture debates that ocra whales usually tend to swim near the surface, while the submarines are deep in the ocean. So, they can’t hear them unless they come close to it. She goes on and illustrates that they would be detected by the submarines’ sonar if they came close to them. Therefore, the claim that these sounds come from ocra whales is not well-founded.
Secondly, the author provides another possible explanation, that the noise comes from a giant squid that approached the submarines out of curiosity. He further explains that the giant squid couldn’t be detected because their bodies are soft with no skeleton. Meanwhile, the professor debates this explanation and implies that squids always lived in the same place. Thus, there is no explanation for the sudden appearance of the noise for two decades then the sudden disappearance of the same sounds in 1980. Accordingly, the second possible explanation by the author is not valid.
Lastly, the article assumes that it could be the sound of another country’s submarines that secretly patrol the area. This submarine has advanced technology that makes it undetectable by the Russian submarines. However, the lecture disagrees with this assumption and further interprets that, submarines can’t move around so quickly as the movement of the sound that is heard. Subsequently, the assumption made by the article is not accurate.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, well, while, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1474.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 281.0 270.72406181 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24555160142 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09427095027 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.719219853 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.544483985765 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 444.6 419.366225166 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.9378787856 49.2860985944 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.125 110.228320801 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5625 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.8125 7.06452816374 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => 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: 9.0 4.27373068433 211% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.201487585423 0.272083759551 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0637515975288 0.0996497079465 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0489788223573 0.0662205650399 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116079295312 0.162205337803 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.053111782096 0.0443174109184 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.87 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.19 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.