Both the reading passage and the lecture are about a strange sound called quackers that happened between 1960s till 1980s, and suddenly disappeared after that. Although the article highly suggests three reasons for the phenomenon, but the lecturer casts doubt on all of them and believes no one knows the real reasons and that the hypotheses suggested in the article have certain problems.
First, one might think the idea of male and female orca whales noise, pointed in the article, might sound logical, but the lecturer rejects the idea. She points to the fact that these marine animals live near the surface of water, while the submarine went deep into water. Thus it's not plausible to hear the noise of whales in that depth. Moreover, since whales are detectable with sonar, researchers must be able to detect them but couldn't. That's another proof for refuting the issue of whales.
In addition, the reading passage mentions giant sqids as a candidate for producing the noise and because they're not detectable with sonar, it can be a good guess at the first glance. Albeit giant sqids are a better candidate for the mystery, but we come up to this question that why did the noise disappear just after 1980 while the giant sqids lived in the ocean after that and do still live there? It doesn't seem reasonable to hear the noise just for two decades and then suddenly stop hearing it.
Last but not the least, the article points to a foreign submarine, but the lecturer challenges the idea, as we don't have the technology to build such quick submarines. Additionally, submerine's engins don't produce such low noise and even today, in this decade, we haven't been able to build a fast and low noise submarine like that. To conclude from what the lecturer said, it sounds impossible to believe in a foreign submarine.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 274, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...ile the submarine went deep into water. Thus its not plausible to hear the noise of ...
^^^^
Line 2, column 434, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...archers must be able to detect them but couldnt. Thats another proof for refuting the i...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 443, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: That's
...ust be able to detect them but couldnt. Thats another proof for refuting the issue of...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 106, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: they're
...ate for producing the noise and because theyre not detectable with sonar, it can be a ...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 403, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... after that and do still live there? It doesnt seem reasonable to hear the noise just ...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 112, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...the lecturer challenges the idea, as we dont have the technology to build such quick...
^^^^
Line 4, column 201, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...arines. Additionally, submerines engins dont produce such low noise and even today, ...
^^^^
Line 4, column 264, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
...oise and even today, in this decade, we havent been able to build a fast and low noise...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, moreover, so, still, then, thus, while, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 7.30242825607 219% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1509.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 313.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.82108626198 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.33661898913 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 145.348785872 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.575079872204 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 459.9 419.366225166 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.23620309051 24% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.3797015655 49.2860985944 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.076923077 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0769230769 21.698381199 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.84615384615 7.06452816374 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 4.19205298013 191% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
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: 0.222765042573 0.272083759551 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0714632321606 0.0996497079465 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0287433828965 0.0662205650399 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123753644403 0.162205337803 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0287748520774 0.0443174109184 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.2367328918 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.