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 mate are similar to those that the submarines were detecting.
A second idea is that the sounds were caused by giant squid. Giant squid 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 the 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.
To begin with, the author indicates that the sounds are the calls from orca whales. However, the lecturer points out that the orca whales are living near the surface of water. It is unlikely that the submarines locating in the deep water can hear their voices. Moreover, if the noises are from orca whales, if should be detected by the sonar. As a result, the professor can not give a nod to the author in terms of the first point.
Secondly, about the giant squid, the reading suggests that the noises were caused by giant squid whereas the speaker holds the view that the squids are still live in the ocean, if the voices are result from them, there is no reason the sounds disappear after 1980s. Apparently, the professor disproves its counterpart in the reading.
In addition, the writer claims that the sounds are produced by some military technology. The lecturer, on the other hand, argues that the sounds moved around and its direction changed rapidly. It is not possible that other submarines can move fast with a silent engine. Therefore, she can not support the opinion of the foreign submarines.
To sum up, the author and the professor have conflicting views on this topic.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 433, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...the author in terms of the first point. Secondly, about the giant squid, the rea...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, whereas, in addition, as a result, to begin with, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 990.0 1373.03311258 72% => OK
No of words: 206.0 270.72406181 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.80582524272 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.78849575616 4.04702891845 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.3492136532 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 122.0 145.348785872 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.592233009709 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 297.0 419.366225166 71% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.3149317667 49.2860985944 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.5 110.228320801 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1666666667 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.3333333333 7.06452816374 189% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.100407234973 0.272083759551 37% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0322370232174 0.0996497079465 32% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0328810982615 0.0662205650399 50% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0481707438424 0.162205337803 30% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0285091809701 0.0443174109184 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.8 13.3589403974 73% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 71.14 53.8541721854 132% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 11.0289183223 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.32 12.2367328918 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.16 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 48.0 63.6247240618 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.5 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.