Writing and lecture are both about "quackers", which are unusual sounds detected by Russian submarines, between 1960 and 1980, while navigating in the North Atlantic and Arctic Ocean. On the one side, the writer suggests three theories regarding the provenience of those sounds. On the other hand, the lecturer cast doubts on the claims made by the author, stating that his hypotheses are somewhat inaccurate when compared with real facts.
First, the author says that sounds came from underwater sources and they were cause by whales because both sounds are alike, but the speaker rejects this because Orca whales live on the surface. Moreover, these animals can be detected by sonar, but Russians were unable to notice anything on the radars. Hence, the author's standpoint is not plausible.
Second, giant squids have always inhabited that area, and even today these can be noticed there. The passage sustains that noises could be heard for two decades, and aftermath they totally halted. Thus, there is no reasonable motif to explain why they stopped, since squids presence is still a current fact. So, this argument confutes one of the passage's theory.
Third, it is impossible that another states' submarines to be responsible for the sounds. This is due to the fact that the technology was not that advanced, so nobody could have build undetectable machines. Furthermore, the sounds were moving around fast, and even today engineers cannot build such fast and silent submarines. Therefore, is unrealistic to believe that such advanced technology could have been possible in the past. To summarize author and speaker seem to be in total disagreement regarding this topic.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 316, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...tice anything on the radars. Hence, the authors standpoint is not plausible. Second,...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 347, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'passages'' or 'passage's'?
Suggestion: passages'; passage's
.... So, this argument confutes one of the passages theory. Third, it is impossible that...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, hence, if, moreover, regarding, second, so, still, therefore, third, thus, while, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1425.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 270.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27777777778 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05360046442 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65713574557 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.644444444444 0.540411800872 119% => OK
syllable_count: 433.8 419.366225166 103% => 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: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
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: 41.0839790348 49.2860985944 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.0 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.26666666667 7.06452816374 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => 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: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.321816488809 0.272083759551 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0816918598438 0.0996497079465 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0643441057263 0.0662205650399 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168023807332 0.162205337803 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0627430527273 0.0443174109184 142% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.97 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.