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.
Both the reading and the lecture discuss about the quackers sounds. The author states that there are numerous theories that suggest how these sounds are produced. However, the lecturer rebuts this claim by saying that there are challenges facing those theories proposed by the author in the passage.
First of all, the writer says that the strange quackers noises were made by the male and female ocra whales during the period of courtship. Results from the studies carried out on these whales shows similar sounds. On the other hand, the professor refutes this claim by stating that it is very unlikely that these noises where produced by the ocra whales, because they live in the surface far from the deep part of the water where the submarines move. Also, the sound could be detected by the sonar if it near.
Secondly, the reading mentions that the sounds were produced by the giant squid which could not be detected by the sonar because of their soft bodies. This specific argument is challenged by the speaker. He contends the sound was initially detected in the 60's, disappear and appear after ten years and it is impossible that the machine will stop detecting the sounds of the squid and then start noticing it again after sometime.
Lastly, the writer brings his argument to a close by suggesting that the unusual sounds were produced from military technology from other nations. Nevertheless, the professor opposes this notion by explaining that it is very unlikely that the sound is produced from the military submarines. According to him, the source of the sound changes direction quickly, and the military submarines doesn't change direction that fast. Thus, it is not likely that these sounds are produced from these submarines.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 389, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...on quickly, and the military submarines doesnt change direction that fast. Thus, it is...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, lastly, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, then, thus, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 22.412803532 152% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1461.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 291.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0206185567 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13022058845 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.3359408273 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 145.348785872 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508591065292 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 441.0 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.4003978472 49.2860985944 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.357142857 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7857142857 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.42857142857 7.06452816374 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.118694707681 0.272083759551 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0403703445759 0.0996497079465 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0317191315196 0.0662205650399 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.068026928109 0.162205337803 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0299566794939 0.0443174109184 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.