The professor in the lecture disagrees with the author of the passage who argues that 'quackers' -- a bizarre, frog-like sound, fast moving and undetectable to submarine sonars, an underwater sound detector, in the 1960s through the 1980s -- could have been produced by Orca whales, a giant squid, or a foreign submarine.
First, the professor argues that Orca whales cannot be an answer for quackers. To be more specific, the author suggests that female Orca whales could have made the strange sound to attract male Orca whales. However, the professor states that the whales lived near the surface, and submarines operate in deep underwater, making it difficult to detect the sound. Moreover, if it truly was from a whale, they should have been detected by the sonar, but they were not. Therefore, the professor clearly refutes the author's first point.
Second, the professor also evidently refutes the author’s giant squid theory that their complex brain structure indicating intelligence allows them to produce such sound, and their soft bodies with skeletons makes them undetectable to sonars. The professor contends that there is no supporting evidence for why the sound suddenly stopped after 1980s while the squids still inhabit there.
Third, the professor maintains that foreign submarines cannot be source either because submarines produce engine sounds which should have been detected with the quacker. There were no technology available back then to produce engines quiet enough to avoid sonar detection; similarly, the sound changed direction and moved in such a quick manner, which submarines back then were not capable of. This undoubtedly repudiates the author’s assertion that the unusual sounds could have been that of foreign submarines such as those of Russia. The submarines could have been specially designed to avoid being noticed to clandestinely patrol other countries.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 394, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s while the squids still inhabit there. Third, the professor maintains that fore...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, moreover, second, similarly, so, still, then, therefore, third, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1611.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 295.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.46101694915 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60090494813 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 145.348785872 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.586440677966 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 484.2 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.4655156008 49.2860985944 143% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.25 110.228320801 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.5833333333 21.698381199 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.08333333333 7.06452816374 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
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: 0.451132301478 0.272083759551 166% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.16689067815 0.0996497079465 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.083887490498 0.0662205650399 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.266526009554 0.162205337803 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0695959479909 0.0443174109184 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 13.3589403974 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.68 12.2367328918 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.32 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.