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.
When it comes to the source of odd sounds detected by Russian submarines from 1960s to 1980s, the speaker completely refutes the information from the reading material.
Initially, the author claims that the strange noises derived from the call of orca whales attracting a mate, which is similar to the sounds that the submarines found. However, the lecturer holds an opposite view. To be specific, it is known to us that orca whales live in the surface of ocean instead of deep sea where submarines usually sail. Evidently, those noises detected by those russia submarines in the deep sea could not be the voice of orcas who muttered on the surface.
In addition, in the passage, giant squid was brought under suspicion for the reason that they might emit some sound and even approach the submarines. The professor, nevertheless, argues against this viewpoint. To elaborate, the hazard occurred during only ten years, whereas if there are giant squid in that area, the noise would not disappear in ten years because they hardly migrate where they live for many years. As a result, the sound would continue for decades, which conflicts with the theory stated by the author.
Lastly, the writer professes that the sound was made by other submarines that were secretly patrolling in the deep sea. But from the listening, we know that direction of a submarine cannot change fast and acutely. While the sonar suggested that this object could divert its direction easily. Moreover, the engine of submarines are always accompanied with tremendous noise, which, as a matter of fact, these russia submarines did not find at that time. So it is self-evident that this state made by the author is totally wrong.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nformation from the reading material. Initially, the author claims that the st...
^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...of orcas who muttered on the surface. In addition, in the passage, giant squid...
^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...with the theory stated by the author. Lastly, the writer professes that the so...
^^^^
Line 15, column 215, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “While” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...bmarine cannot change fast and acutely. While the sonar suggested that this object co...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, lastly, moreover, nevertheless, so, whereas, while, in addition, as a matter of fact, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1437.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 285.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04210526316 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5029769902 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 145.348785872 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.59649122807 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 434.7 419.366225166 104% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.3044125436 49.2860985944 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.642857143 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3571428571 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.21428571429 7.06452816374 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.139820205262 0.272083759551 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0429320126774 0.0996497079465 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0304353264903 0.0662205650399 46% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0835003665383 0.162205337803 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0245800062506 0.0443174109184 55% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.