Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific theories mentioned in the reading passage
The reading and the lecture are both about how to keep Rhinos safe when illegal hunting endangered them to extinction. Whereas the author of the passage explains three ways to preserve the Rhinos from extinction, the lecturer refutets each of methods. She believes that of course they must do something but there are serious weakness with all the suggestions.
First, the reading suggests that experts can dehorn the Rhinos in order to make them less attractive preys for hunters. However, the lecturer disputes this idea. She states that dehorning is neighter practical nor good for animal. She mentions that the experts need much time and money to find, prepare, and do surgery on the Rhinos. So it will be very costly. In addition, Rhinos need the horn for several vital purposes such as digging, guiding, and protecting its family. So, dehorning will damage them severly in wildlife.
Second, the author states that educating the consumers who believe in health benefits of horn can lead to reduce the demand and discourage pouching. Nevertheless, the professor opposes this statement. She posits that those mentioned beliefs have so strong ancient roots in the culture of consumers that makes it possible to change their opinions about.
Finally, the reading argues that if the government legalize the selling of stored horns, which are taken from hunters, the abundance of horn will reduce the price in market. On the contrary, the lecturer rejects this argument by saying that if the government start to sell captured horns, it makes the trade acceptable for people who before that never think about buying them. Therefore, there will be lots of new costumers for horn that leads to grow the market. Each growth in demand cause an increase in price and again make the illegal pouching highly profitable.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, whereas, in addition, of course, such as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1516.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 298.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08724832215 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15483772266 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42654345687 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 145.348785872 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.60067114094 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 456.3 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.6966949032 49.2860985944 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.1764705882 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5294117647 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.52941176471 7.06452816374 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => 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: 11.3 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.