The passage examines two hypotheses related to the cause of the declination of sea otters and supports the idea that the environmental pollution seems a plausible reason for such a phenomenon. On the other hand, the professor challenges the writer's opinion in the lecture by subscribing to the view that the main reason which best justifies the declination is the attacks by the predators.
First of all, the lecturer challenges the claim in the passage that chemical pollution in the water might have caused the deaths by referring to the point that no dead body of sea otters has been found yet. According to the professor, the fact that we can not find their bodies matches the theory that they could have been killed by the predators.
Furthermore, the lecturer alleges that human hunting activities have influenced the diet of the orcas. Therefore, they are opting for small-sized preys such as sea lions or sea otters. This point opposes the writer's opinion that refutes the notion that the orcas have brought about the mentioned situation because of their preference to eat much larger preys.
Finally, the author points out the uneven pattern of the declination of the otters as another evidence that the pollution is the most influential parameter. The professor, however, mentions the accessibility of some locations to the orcas as the reason for the non-uniform distribution of the declination. She states that rarely could the orcas reach the shallow and rocky areas, and as a result, no declination has been seen in these environments.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 242, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...ther hand, the professor challenges the writers opinion in the lecture by subscribing t...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 209, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...s or sea otters. This point opposes the writers opinion that refutes the notion that th...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, so, therefore, such as, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
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: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1303.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 256.0 270.72406181 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08984375 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78284879872 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.54296875 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 396.0 419.366225166 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.3719949964 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.3 110.228320801 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6 21.698381199 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.5 7.06452816374 163% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
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: 0.108951226108 0.272083759551 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0429263350182 0.0996497079465 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0552200763034 0.0662205650399 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0659921034841 0.162205337803 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0181937480399 0.0443174109184 41% => 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: 15.3 13.3589403974 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.95 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 10.7273730684 177% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.