The reading and lecture both discuss the main causes of sea cows extinction. While the reading provides three explanations of sea cows extinction, the professor refutes, saying none of these claims are convincing.
Firstly, the reading states that people over hunted the sea cows because these were a good source of food supply. So, the sea cows population declined. On the other hand, the professor argues this notion saying that the sea cows were massive creature and these animals were enough to feed many people for several months. Moreover, the Siberian people were not too much people. So, there was not any need to hunt many sea cows. As a result, the Siberian people did not over hunt these sea cows until extinction.
In addition, the article avers that there was ecosystem unbalance and many kelp animals declined. So, sea cows could not found enough food to survive. Consequently, the sea cows population decreased. However, the professor rejects this idea by pointing out that if something sever happened before 1968, it should affect other animals. For instance, it would decrease the number of other marines like wheels. In fact, there was not any wheels decline records. Furthermore, all sea cows were growing fine and there was not any food shortage. So, there was not any ecosystem disturbance caused sea cows extinction.
Lastly, the reading mentions that many European fur traders caught many sea cows and killed them with weapons. As a result, these animals had been extincted. Nevertheless, the professor contradicts this idea by explaining that these extinction happened after the European fur traders arrived the island. Moreover, when they arrived this island, the sea cows population was already small. So, the extinction happened before 1768. Consequently, the extinction occurred years before the traders arriving. As a result, the fur traders could not be the reason behind the sea cows extinction.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 127, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'cows'' or 'cow's'?
Suggestion: cows'; cow's
...good source of food supply. So, the sea cows population declined. On the other hand,...
^^^^
Line 3, column 365, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
...eover, the Siberian people were not too much people. So, there was not any need to h...
^^^^
Line 5, column 174, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'cows'' or 'cow's'?
Suggestion: cows'; cow's
... food to survive. Consequently, the sea cows population decreased. However, the prof...
^^^^
Line 7, column 228, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this extinction' or 'these extinctions'?
Suggestion: this extinction; these extinctions
...ontradicts this idea by explaining that these extinction happened after the European fur traders...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 354, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'cows'' or 'cow's'?
Suggestion: cows'; cow's
... when they arrived this island, the sea cows population was already small. So, the e...
^^^^
Line 7, column 571, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'cows'' or 'cow's'?
Suggestion: cows'; cow's
... could not be the reason behind the sea cows extinction.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, lastly, moreover, nevertheless, so, while, for instance, in addition, in fact, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 5.01324503311 299% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1625.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 311.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22508038585 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19942759058 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54425984015 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 145.348785872 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485530546624 0.540411800872 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 487.8 419.366225166 116% => 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: 16.0 8.23620309051 194% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 13.0662251656 176% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.6890053654 49.2860985944 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 70.652173913 110.228320801 64% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.5217391304 21.698381199 62% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.17391304348 7.06452816374 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 14.0 4.27373068433 328% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
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: 10.0 13.3589403974 75% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.28 53.8541721854 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.46 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.58 8.42419426049 90% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.2 10.498013245 69% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => 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.