The article provides three methods to prevent injuries to birds when using the glass as building material. However, the professors opposes of these ideas. He believes that those solutions are actually invalid.
First, the author of the article suggests that we could use the one-way glass, so the occupant could see out while the birds could not see in. Nevertheless, the professor points out that one-way glass actually acts as a mirror for the birds. They might be misled by the reflection, thus this solution is unconvincing.
In addition, the author states that the colorful design on the regular glass would be useful. On one hand, the bird could notice the stripe on the glass so they would not fly through it. On the other hand, the occupants could still able to see through the opening in the design. However, the professor indicates that if the openings are too big, the birds would actually view those openings as holes and try to fly through them. On contrary, when the openings are too small, people could not see through them. Thus, this solution is still impracticable.
Finally, the author gives another solution: using the magnetic field to guide the bird. the professor refutes this idea by saying that the birds only use the magnetic technique when traveling long way such as migration. When taking short distance trip, they only use their eyes and the brightness of the light to navigate. Hence, he disagree with the statements of the author
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 89, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...g the magnetic field to guide the bird. the professor refutes this idea by saying t...
^^^
Line 7, column 334, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'disagrees'.
Suggestion: disagrees
...ess of the light to navigate. Hence, he disagree with the statements of the author
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, finally, first, hence, however, if, nevertheless, so, still, thus, while, in addition, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1224.0 1373.03311258 89% => OK
No of words: 248.0 270.72406181 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.93548387097 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96837696647 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.40494363805 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 132.0 145.348785872 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.532258064516 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 358.2 419.366225166 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => 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: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.1003918786 49.2860985944 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 76.5 110.228320801 69% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.5 21.698381199 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.6875 7.06452816374 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
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: 9.6 13.3589403974 72% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 73.17 53.8541721854 136% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.8 11.0289183223 62% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.08 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.56 8.42419426049 90% => OK
difficult_words: 50.0 63.6247240618 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 7.0 11.2008830022 62% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.