TPO 27 INTEGRATED
Both the article and the lecture discuss the causes of the Little Ice Age. On one hand, the article presents several causes of this phenomenon. On the other hand, the professor refutes each of the author's argument respectively.
First and foremost, the reading claims that the disrupting of ocean currents contributes to the cooling. It states that the melted glaciers, which came from the period preceding the Little Ice Age, sent the abundance of cold freshwater to the Gulf Stream and thus, disrupt it. However, the professor disapprove of this point by saying that the Gulf Stream's disruption only affected Europe and American regions. Therefore, according to the professor, it couldn't explain the occurrence in the Southern Hemisphere.
In addition, the article posits that the Little Ice Age was created by the volcanic eruption. In other words, when volcanoes erupt, dust and sulfur gas were released to the environment, blocked the sunlight and consequently, lower the temperature. Nonetheless, the professor casts doubt on this point by emphasizing that there wasn't enough of dust to have reduced the temperature. He infers that if there was, in fact, a substantial amount of dust, it would have produced visual effects such as colorful sunset and gray snow. That being said, no reports were made for these effects
Last but not least, the reading indicates that the decrease in human population play an indirect role in causing the Little Ice Age since with less humans, there would be less fields for agriculture and forest trees could have more place to grow. In contrast, the professor rebuts this argument. He argues that there wasn't enough time for this process to have occurred. He informs that the human population will rise back shortly after and cut down trees for crops.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
Both the article and the lecture discuss...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 203, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...hand, the professor refutes each of the authors argument respectively. First a...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the authors argument respectively. First and foremost, the reading claims t...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 459, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...erefore, according to the professor, it couldnt explain the occurrence in the Southern ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...urrence in the Southern Hemisphere. In addition, the article posits that the...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 333, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...on this point by emphasizing that there wasnt enough of dust to have reduced the temp...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... reports were made for these effects Last but not least, the reading indicate...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 150, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun humans is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...n causing the Little Ice Age since with less humans, there would be less fields for ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 178, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun fields is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
... since with less humans, there would be less fields for agriculture and forest trees...
^^^^
Line 7, column 324, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...uts this argument. He argues that there wasnt enough time for this process to have oc...
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'consequently', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'nonetheless', 'so', 'therefore', 'thus', 'in addition', 'in contrast', 'in fact', 'such as', 'in other words', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.262839879154 0.261695866417 100% => OK
Verbs: 0.14501510574 0.158904122519 91% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0725075528701 0.0723426182421 100% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0392749244713 0.0435111971325 90% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0211480362538 0.0277247811725 76% => OK
Prepositions: 0.123867069486 0.128828473217 96% => OK
Participles: 0.036253776435 0.0370669169778 98% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.57542072141 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0211480362538 0.0208969081088 101% => OK
Particles: 0.00302114803625 0.00154638098197 195% => OK
Determiners: 0.135951661631 0.128158765124 106% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.012084592145 0.0158828679856 76% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00604229607251 0.0114777025283 53% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1821.0 1645.83664459 111% => OK
No of words: 294.0 271.125827815 108% => OK
Chars per words: 6.19387755102 6.08160592843 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14082457966 4.04852973271 102% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.363945578231 0.374372842146 97% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.265306122449 0.287516216867 92% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.180272108844 0.187439937562 96% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.125850340136 0.113142543107 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57542072141 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.595238095238 0.539623497131 110% => OK
Word variations: 65.0661621215 53.8517498576 121% => OK
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0529801325 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.6 21.7502111507 90% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.1625884199 49.3711431718 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.4 132.220823453 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6 21.7502111507 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.0 0.878197800319 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 3.39072847682 295% => Correct essay format wanted or double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
Readability: 46.1306122449 50.5018328374 91% => OK
Elegance: 2.05882352941 1.90840788429 108% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.686302865131 0.549887131256 125% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.150044551892 0.142949733639 105% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.054328548742 0.0787303798458 69% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.592948939506 0.631733273073 94% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.163739524335 0.139662658121 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.318469437973 0.266732575781 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.134451647796 0.103435571967 130% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.494046190156 0.414875509568 119% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0667010153556 0.0530846634433 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.506583615143 0.40443939384 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0654278824288 0.0528353158467 124% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.26048565121 94% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 3.49668874172 143% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 3.62251655629 110% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 3.1766004415 126% => OK
Total topic words: 13.0 10.2958057395 126% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.