The lecturer and the writer are both talking about sea otters, which are decreasing in number in some places. The author says that the main cause is pollution. The lecture cast doubts on the claims made in the article. He thinks that predators are responsible for the fast declining of sea otters.
First, the present investigations report that predators are guilty for this phenomenon. There aren't enough proofs, like dead bodies, to demonstrate that pollution is causing their death. If this fact was true, the sea would wash up their bodies on the shore. Instead, the lack thereof shows that their disappearance is linked to the existence of predators, such as the orca. This is a strong counter-point that contradicts the author of the article.
Second, humans over-hunted big whales which represent the main source of food for orcs. The author states that pollution affected the entire ecosystem, killing both sea otters and mammals. However, the lecturer says that orca started to hunt small mammals as an alternative for feeding. This is another standpoint that contradicts the passage.
Third, a visible declining of these animals was noticed in accessible place for orcs. Since orcs are big mammals, they are able to hunt only in wide spaces. Therefore, they cannot enter in shallow and rocky locations, places where the number of mammals is still stable. This fact is directly contradicting the passage, showing that the uneven pattern is linked to the place accessibility, not to the currents that might have spread chemical substances. Not to mention that there are no traces of pollution in the areas where mammals has disappeared. In conclusion, the author and the lecturer appear to be in total disagreement regarding this topic.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 161, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... says that the main cause is pollution. The lecture cast doubts on the claims made ...
^^^
Line 3, column 95, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
...s are guilty for this phenomenon. There arent enough proofs, like dead bodies, to dem...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, regarding, second, so, still, therefore, third, in conclusion, such as, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1469.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 285.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15438596491 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71086638416 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.571929824561 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 439.2 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 28.3957977461 49.2860985944 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 77.3157894737 110.228320801 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.0 21.698381199 69% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.52631578947 7.06452816374 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.214643276555 0.272083759551 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0584651886126 0.0996497079465 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0432237301521 0.0662205650399 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125586179848 0.162205337803 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0237811523914 0.0443174109184 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.3 13.3589403974 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 53.8541721854 120% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 11.0289183223 73% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.0 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.81 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.