Summarize the points made in the lecture being sure to explain how they oppose specific points made in the reading passage
The reading talked about altruism as when humans or even animals sacrifice their own interest for that of another animal, another person without gaining any personal reward. The reading discussed altruism using both humans and animals(meerkats) as an example and provided scenarios where both displayed altruism to their fellow animals, family, friends or even strangers. But, the professor refutes the points raised in the reading using science and examples that further negates the reading.
Firstly, according to the reading, humans share their food with strangers and even donate their own organs to members of their families, friends or strangers. But the professor talks about the fact that even though the humans who do these don’t get anything material thing in return, they get appreciation, approval or even an increase in self-worth as a result of the appreciation they get from society and how much appreciation they get. this further explains that the act which is said to be altruism isn’t totally one without personal interest since they get a return which is still valuable.
Also, the passage discussed animals, specifically the meerkats as an example of animals who display altruism, it is said that meerkats are really altruist in nature because they sacrifice their food or even stand guard while others feed or hunt. The passage discussed the sentinel as an example, the sentinel stand guard while other members of the group hunt and raises an alarm so that others can escape first leaving the sentinel at risk of more danger. The passage explained that the sentinel acts as a guide for other member of the group even though it gets nothing in return. It carries out this act so that the other meerkats can feed and hunt while it keeps watch. But, the professor talked about those sentinels having eaten even before standing guard, they are standing guard will full stomachs and are not truly altruist as the passage discussed. This explanation shows that the sentinels who are said to be altruist by carrying cut the act without any personal interest actually are doing it after they have a full stomach.
The behavior which is said to be altruism by the passage was further refuted when the professor mentions that the anirr.al who raises the alarm is most likely to escape since it is very close to the burrow, this makes it very easy for the animal to escape because when animals make loud cries or alarm, the animals tend to move together and this calls attention to them which further place them at risk and even makes the sentinel safe. This act which the passage referred to altruism is actually an act that puts the ether members of the group at risk of being attacked by predators first.
In conclusion, the points raised by the reading passage about the altruism exhibited by humans and animals, meerkats specifically have been realized to not be altruism as the lecture by the professor has opposed every point that was raised by the passage. And this means that humans and animals are not really altruist or cannot be considered as altruist since they have a gain they are getting from it whether material or nonmaterial.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 440, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...ety and how much appreciation they get. this further explains that the act which is ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, if, really, so, still, while, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 10.4613686534 220% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 7.30242825607 315% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 26.0 12.0772626932 215% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 47.0 22.412803532 210% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 55.0 30.3222958057 181% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2637.0 1373.03311258 192% => OK
No of words: 533.0 270.72406181 197% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.94746716698 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80487177365 4.04702891845 119% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.40713749873 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 145.348785872 153% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.416510318949 0.540411800872 77% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 801.0 419.366225166 191% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => 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: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 33.0 21.2450331126 155% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 78.7812438021 49.2860985944 160% => OK
Chars per sentence: 164.8125 110.228320801 150% => OK
Words per sentence: 33.3125 21.698381199 154% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.8125 7.06452816374 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.157044937014 0.272083759551 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0610155616974 0.0996497079465 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0603153866091 0.0662205650399 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102889632392 0.162205337803 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0727609351348 0.0443174109184 164% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.5 13.3589403974 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.44 53.8541721854 86% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.0289183223 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 63.6247240618 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.2 10.498013245 145% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.