The reading passage and the lecture talk about the possible theories of the sounds "quackers" Despite that, the professor in the lecture states that these theories have certain problems. She casts doubt on every single point the reading makes and provide details to support her idea in the lecture.
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 3, 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 : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => 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: 1254.0 1373.03311258 91% => OK
No of words: 255.0 270.72406181 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.91764705882 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99608801488 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48732581225 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 145.348785872 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.564705882353 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 375.3 419.366225166 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 53.821938096 49.2860985944 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.5714285714 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2142857143 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.4285714286 7.06452816374 162% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => 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: 0.09835770474 0.272083759551 36% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0302200655693 0.0996497079465 30% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0315914414446 0.0662205650399 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0442392836442 0.162205337803 27% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0266841570379 0.0443174109184 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 13.3589403974 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.