The article and the lecture are both about zebra mussel, which is a fresh water shellfish. The writer states that this species is going to invade North America, and thus become a threaten for various fish species. However, the lecture casts doubt on the claims made by the writer, saying that his allegations are somehow inaccurate when compared to reality.
First, the invasion can be stopped because nowadays people have essential knowledge about the way it spreads. The author believes zebra mussels travels with ships that have ballast water, and their invasion is impossible to be halted. Anyway, the lecturer refutes this by underlining the fact that ships can be required to empty the ballast water in the ocean where mussels cannot survive because of the salty water, and therefore stop the invasion. This is a strong counter-point to the author's point of view.
Second, it is true that when it first enters a new habitat, the shellfish tends to dominate it, but in North America there are numerous species of birds that like to eat huge quantities of mussels. Thus, mussels' number is going to rapidly decrease. This is another standpoint that contradicts the passage.
Third, even though in the beginning they might have a negative impact on the fishes that eat plankton, this balance changes. The writer says that zebra mussels competes with freshwater fishes, leading to the latter's extinction. But the lecturer refutes this by arguing that bottom fish population will increase because of the nutrients zebra mussels provide. So, the author's argument is once again rejected. To summarize, the author and the speaker seem to be in total disagreement regarding this topic.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 178, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...o invade North America, and thus become a threaten for various fish species. However, the ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 327, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'nutrients'' or 'nutrient's'?
Suggestion: nutrients'; nutrient's
...population will increase because of the nutrients zebra mussels provide. So, the authors ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 368, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...utrients zebra mussels provide. So, the authors argument is once again rejected. To sum...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
anyway, but, first, however, regarding, second, so, therefore, third, thus, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1415.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 276.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1268115942 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07593519647 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48114873271 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.583333333333 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 428.4 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.57235425 49.2860985944 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.3333333333 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.73333333333 7.06452816374 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.388489715469 0.272083759551 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.113781870606 0.0996497079465 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0898717260743 0.0662205650399 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.213255621482 0.162205337803 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.039663768808 0.0443174109184 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.0 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.