Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific solutions proposed in the reading passage.
Both the reading and the lecture discuss the ways to solve the salinity. The reading provides three possible solutions. However, the professor strongly disagrees with the reading passage. Accordingly, he presents three refutations.
First of all, the reading passage mentions that using special desalination facilities to remove the salt. Yet, the lecturer severely challenges the theory by arguing that those facilities might leave toxic materials when water evaporating. Moreover, some toxic material might hurt people's health if they breathe in. Therefore, desalination facilities will cause other problems.
Secondly, the passage suggests that transfer the ocean water through pipelines or canals. Nevertheless, the scholars seriously contradicts the hypothesis because the local government was not willing to cooperate. To elaborate, he contends that building pipelines or canals in long distance is very expensive. As a result, the government would not pay for it.
Least but not last, the reading indicates that placing walls to divide the lake into several section. Once again, the speaker opposes that this way is not work in a long time. To be more specific, some lakes locate in frequent earth-quake place, so the earth quake would destroy the walls. Thus, constructing the walls only work in short time without earth quake.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 86, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun section seems to be countable; consider using: 'several sections'.
Suggestion: several sections
...t placing walls to divide the lake into several section. Once again, the speaker opposes that t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, first, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, in short, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 10.4613686534 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 22.412803532 54% => OK
Preposition: 17.0 30.3222958057 56% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1141.0 1373.03311258 83% => OK
No of words: 204.0 270.72406181 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.5931372549 5.08290768461 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.77926670891 4.04702891845 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73929270598 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.696078431373 0.540411800872 129% => OK
syllable_count: 342.9 419.366225166 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 12.0 21.2450331126 56% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 26.4000917375 49.2860985944 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 71.3125 110.228320801 65% => OK
Words per sentence: 12.75 21.698381199 59% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 8.5 7.06452816374 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.104287606502 0.272083759551 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0303990448859 0.0996497079465 31% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0322834918027 0.0662205650399 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0565192487354 0.162205337803 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0317645730516 0.0443174109184 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.84 53.8541721854 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.2 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.25 12.2367328918 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.95 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 6.8 10.498013245 65% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.