Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how the proposal discussed in the lecture would solve the specific challenges described in the reading passage.
The article discusses a fascinating topic pertaining to human presence on Mars and the moon would be impossible due to bad conditions and provides three reasons for support. Nevertheless, the professor explains that establishing a human station in certainly possible and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading passage posits that higher atmospheric pressure makes difficult to survive at Venus. In contrast, the professor points out that developing a balloon station helps. He states that balloon station kept 50km above the Venus surface and as the pressure is lower at the higher surface it helps to make equal pressure like earth, so human lives can survive easily. Clearly, a disparity exists between the article and evidence exhibited by the professor,
Second, the reading article pushes forth the idea that the absence of water reservoirs causes difficult for human living. Regardless, according to the professor venus atmosphere has carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid, which are helpful to develop oxygen which eventually led to producing water. Consequently, we can argue that indeed the claim made in the reading is unsubstantiated.
Finally, the article claims that sunlight is an issue for human living. However, the professor refutes the point by explaining that the Venus clouds are very thin so some sunlight can be pass through the clouds and also a reflection on clouds helps to reach sunlight to the Venus surface. And he also mentions that developing a solar panel helps to collect solar power, which is enough to generate electricity need to run a power station.
In summary, while both the reading and the classroom discussion provides interesting information regarding the inhospitable environment of Venus, significant support found to the opposite because of all the reasons mentioned above. Therefore, we can assume that reading fails to justify the claim.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, regarding, second, so, therefore, while, in contrast, in summary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1611.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 299.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38795986622 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78466607759 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.57525083612 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 498.6 419.366225166 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.1158896637 49.2860985944 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.923076923 110.228320801 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 21.698381199 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.76923076923 7.06452816374 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0974194586021 0.272083759551 36% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0366359542468 0.0996497079465 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0300173537157 0.0662205650399 45% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0568349899239 0.162205337803 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0208930808365 0.0443174109184 47% => 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: 15.5 13.3589403974 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 53.8541721854 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.0289183223 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.28 12.2367328918 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.37 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 63.6247240618 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.