Throughout the world's oceans, hard structures such as natural reefs provide ideal marine habitats. Reefs provide hard surfaces to which plants, coral and sponges can attach, and thereby provide food and shelter for many types of fish. Recently, workers in the fishing industry have tried to increase the amount of suitable habitat for fish by construction artificial reefs from old metal objects and industrial materials and placing them in coastal waters. Artificial reefs have several benefits.
Many fishers believe that by giving fish more places to gather and reproduce artificial reefs have increased the populations of some species of fish. For example a report from one extensive artificial reef program in the Gulf of Mexico shows that the number of red snapper fish harvested in the area has increased by as much as ten times compared with harvests century ago. The increases in the number of fish caught began after the start of the artificial reef program.
Artificial reefs can also improve the economic competitiveness of small-scale fishers. This is because small-scale fishers are able to create their own private artificial reefs in secret locations only they know. Currently, small-scale fishers struggle to compete with larger corporations because fishing grounds are limited in number and most are known to everyone. Creating fishing areas known only to the fishers who make them will help independent fishers support themselves and their local communities.
Finally, artificial reefs are a good way to recycle materials no longer needed for other purposes. Artificial reefs can be made from old cars and other objects that are otherwise difficult to dispose of. Once these materials have been cleaned to ensure that no harmful chemicals remain, they can be placed in the ocean to serve as reefs for marine life. Artificial reefs thus provide a relatively inexpensive, environmentally friendly way to reuse materials.
The reading passage explores the issue of artificial reefs. The professor's speech deals with the same idea. However, he reports that many experts hold the view that artificial reefs have many cons instead. And in the lecture, he uses three specific points to support his idea.
First, even though the reading suggests that it is artificial reefs that lead to the increase in the populations of some kinds of fish, the professor argues that the effect of attraction can bring the number of overall creatures. To be more specific, due to the lures, plenty of other predators will catch so many fish that eventually limit their populations. Obviously, the professor's argument disproves its counterpart in the reading.
Moreover, contrary to the reading's statement that it can enforce the economic competitiveness of small-scale fishers, the professor contends that there is no exactly safe place for these private individuals. Then he proves this point with the fact that the shallow districts are easy to be found. In other words, these places tend to be famous generally.
Finally, the professor asserts that it will contribute to environmental damage, whereas the author of the reading claims that it has the ability to recycle materials. Then he appoints this claim is indefensible by pointing out that the surrounding sea floor will suffer from the implement of this initiative finally.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 65, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...ores the issue of artificial reefs. The professors speech deals with the same idea. Howeve...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 375, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...limit their populations. Obviously, the professors argument disproves its counterpart in t...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 27, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'readings'' or 'reading's'?
Suggestion: readings'; reading's
...the reading. Moreover, contrary to the readings statement that it can enforce the econo...
^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 317, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e implement of this initiative finally.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, so, then, whereas, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 7.30242825607 14% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1168.0 1373.03311258 85% => OK
No of words: 224.0 270.72406181 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21428571429 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.86867284054 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7711242239 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.620535714286 0.540411800872 115% => OK
syllable_count: 352.8 419.366225166 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 58.546989675 49.2860985944 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.3333333333 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6666666667 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.41666666667 7.06452816374 91% => 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 : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.0630299446273 0.272083759551 23% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0197817757669 0.0996497079465 20% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0309718697064 0.0662205650399 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0365615300989 0.162205337803 23% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0272172828616 0.0443174109184 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.32 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.