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 gaint 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 excerpt states that there are several theories about what might have caused the underwater sound in the north Atlantic and arctic ocean in which the submarines called it as quackers, the author provides three reasons for support. However, the lecture's audio claims that there a lot of problems with the author ideas and she refutes each of them by stating the cause of that sound is not obvious.
To begin with, the article avers that the strange noises were actually the calls of male and female orca whales during a courtship ritual. In contrast, the professor opposes this point of view by saying that this is unlikely because even these whales population live in the same area where people patrolling, but, the submarine work in the deep ocean while these animals are near the surface of water. So, it is difficult to be heard. Moreover, if these whales are near the surface, the sonars cannot detect them. In conclusion, these animals could not be a cause for this quackers sound.
Second, the passage posits that the sounds were caused by giant squid which are giant marines that live deep in the ocean and prey on large fish. On the other hand, the speaker argues this outlook by explaining that the sound was discovered in 1960 and continue for two decades then disappear in 1980. In addition, these animals were still alive and still now they are in the ocean. Thus, there is no reason to stop this sound for twenty years later if these squids are the cause. So, this theory is definitely wrong.
Third, the excerpt mentions that the Russian submarines were picking up stray sounds from some military technology, like another country's submarines that were secretly patrolling. This cast doubt on what the lecturer asserts that he says that the sound moves around and change in all directions. Thus, it is impossible that these submarines can change and rotate that quick. Furthermore, if this is the cause, so, there should be noise from the engines but there is no noisy sound. In addition, still now there is no new engine innovation that works silently with no sound. Consequently, this idea contradicts what the professor explained
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 256, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lectures'' or 'lecture's'?
Suggestion: lectures'; lecture's
...three reasons for support. However, the lectures audio claims that there a lot of proble...
^^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 432, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'noised'?
Suggestion: noised
... this is the cause, so, there should be noise from the engines but there is no noisy ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, consequently, furthermore, however, if, look, moreover, second, so, still, then, third, thus, while, in addition, in conclusion, in contrast, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 10.4613686534 229% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 22.412803532 174% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1799.0 1373.03311258 131% => OK
No of words: 369.0 270.72406181 136% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.87533875339 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38284983912 4.04702891845 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.31071728469 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 145.348785872 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550135501355 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 543.6 419.366225166 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.0143352603 49.2860985944 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.9444444444 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.5 7.06452816374 149% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.152589125322 0.272083759551 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.048476956398 0.0996497079465 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0411660558291 0.0662205650399 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0952924298748 0.162205337803 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0153577424955 0.0443174109184 35% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.3589403974 88% => 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: 11.02 12.2367328918 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.