The article states that altruism is type of behaviour in which an animal sacrifies its own interest for that of another animal or group of animals. It is opposite to selfishness. The article give two examples and makes three point to support it. Whereas, the professor refutes each point providing supporting explainations.
First, the article states that humans beahviour of donating food, blood or other organs of body is example of altruism. The professor refutes this point saying that it is not actually altruism. He states that act of donating gives him/her non-material rewards like happiness, selfsatisfaction or increase in selfforth.
Second, the article posits that miraakat stand as sential to protect their group without eating anything. The professor counter this point providing results of recent studies about meerkat. She states that sentinals actually eat before they stands as gaurd. So therefore, we can't say that sentinel sacrifies food in order to protect their group from predators.
Third, the articles claims that sentinel in danger when the it stands as gaurd. The professor rebutts this point saying that the sentinel is not actually in great danger as the sentinel stands near to their shelter. When the sentinel sees predator, it gives signals to other and seek shelter whereas, for other memebers, it takes time to reach the shelter. Because they may gather together and seek shelter or they may try to find shelter own their own. They are usually aways from shelter and it puts them into greater danger. So, the sentinel are in less danger than other group member and actually doesn't not sacrify their safety in order to protect other members.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 247, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whereas” 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.
...es and makes three point to support it. Whereas, the professor refutes each point provi...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 242, Rule ID: NON3PRS_VERB[2]
Message: The pronoun 'they' must be used with a non-third-person form of a verb: 'stand'
Suggestion: stand
...that sentinals actually eat before they stands as gaurd. So therefore, we cant say tha...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 259, Rule ID: SO_THEREFORE[1]
Message: Use simply 'So' or 'therefore'.
Suggestion: So; Therefore
...tually eat before they stands as gaurd. So therefore, we cant say that sentinel sacrifies fo...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 276, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
... they stands as gaurd. So therefore, we cant say that sentinel sacrifies food in ord...
^^^^
Line 7, column 57, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'it'?
Suggestion: the; it
...les claims that sentinel in danger when the it stands as gaurd. The professor rebutts ...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 602, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...er than other group member and actually doesnt not sacrify their safety in order to pr...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, if, may, second, so, therefore, third, whereas
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 22.412803532 161% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1413.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 273.0 270.72406181 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17582417582 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06481385082 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49230726162 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.52380952381 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 411.3 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.882027348 49.2860985944 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.1176470588 110.228320801 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.0588235294 21.698381199 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 7.06452816374 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => 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: 0.0364713827096 0.272083759551 13% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0144287085938 0.0996497079465 14% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0320746770353 0.0662205650399 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0316584514223 0.162205337803 20% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0356691284292 0.0443174109184 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 13.3589403974 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => 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.