The reading and lecture both talk about the strange sounds called "quackers" detected by Russian submarines between 1960s and 1980s around North Atlantic and Artic ocean. While the reading passage proposes three possible causes of the sound made by a fast and agile source that was undetected by sonar; the lecture refutes the claims by pointing out the lack of enough evidence to hold those theories true.
First, the reading suggests that, the sound was made by female orcas during courtship ritual. A study done on orcas revealed that female orcas make that noise to attract males. However, the lecture argues that, orcas are highly unlikely source of that sound, because orcas live near the surface of the ocean and submarines are in a deep ocean. It will be difficult for submarines to detect the surface sound. Also, sonar can easily detect orcas. Failure to detect source by sonar, makes this claim implausible.
Next, the reading article proposes, a giant squids with soft bodies and absence of skeleton could be the cause. They have complex brain structures and can make quacker noise. But, the lecture presents an argument that, the sound was heard during 1960 to 1980 and disappeared after that. Submarines should detect the noise now too, since, giant squids are still present in the ocean.
Lastly, the passage point towards some kind of military technology like other country's submarine secretly patrolling the area as the origin of the sound. The lecture refuses the claim by pointing out that, submarines cannot move around fast and change direction quickly. Submarine engines make sounds which can be detected. Moreover, the professor adds, even though with technological advances there are no subs that are fast and agile.
In conclusion, the lecture disagrees with the three theories presented in the reading article and states the source of the sound is still unknown.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 45, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'squid'?
Suggestion: squid
..., the reading article proposes, a giant squids with soft bodies and absence of skeleto...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, lastly, moreover, so, still, while, in conclusion, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1604.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 309.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19093851133 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1926597562 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42129165999 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 145.348785872 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.569579288026 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 485.1 419.366225166 116% => 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: 14.0 8.23620309051 170% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 50.5954167269 49.2860985944 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.3529411765 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1764705882 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.23529411765 7.06452816374 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.393227660277 0.272083759551 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126695426083 0.0996497079465 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0609010530744 0.0662205650399 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.204426408317 0.162205337803 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0653464477775 0.0443174109184 147% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => 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: 12.53 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.