Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they challenge the specific arguments presented in the reading passage.
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.
In the reading, the author proposes three theories to explain the strange sound which appears in North Atlantic and the Arctic Ocean when Russian submarines patrolling in there. Nevertheless, the speaker refutes these arguments and points out they are all plausible according to the explanation in the passage.
First of all, the article claims that this sound is made by the orca whales during a courtship ritual. However, the lecture mentions that orca whales are living in the top of the layers of the sea, but the submarines are far under the surface when they hear such sound. Besides, whales could be detected by the sonar if they are nearby the submarines. Thus, the sound seems not relative to the whales.
Second, the writer states that giant squid is another possible creature to emit the sound because they might be close to submarines out of curiosity, and is possible to have the ability to make the sound. On the other hand, the lecturer argues that Russian submarines detect quackers in the 1960s, and continue to register it, but it disappears after 20 years when it first record. However, the giant squid has kept living in there without changing. If there is the squid sound, it would be no reason suddenly starting the sound and disappearing within 20 years.
Lastly, according to the reading materials, another country's submarines would be the possible candidate, and they might be found on the sonar by a specifically designed technology for submarines. Nonetheless, the speaker contends that The sources of the sounds appeared to move around and change direction very quickly, but no any submarines could take such fast speed in patrolling. Moreover, all submarines make some engine noise, but no such noise accompanied the quackers. Even today, people still have no competence to build the submarines with fast speed and salient.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 325, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
... and change direction very quickly, but no any submarines could take such fast spe...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, first, however, if, lastly, moreover, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, so, still, thus, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1555.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 307.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0651465798 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57891193059 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.547231270358 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 466.2 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.51434878587 462% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.1396010339 49.2860985944 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.071428571 110.228320801 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9285714286 21.698381199 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.64285714286 7.06452816374 136% => 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 : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
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: 0.192612317573 0.272083759551 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0609665729214 0.0996497079465 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0482851991382 0.0662205650399 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119445287638 0.162205337803 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0525612141859 0.0443174109184 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.