Both the passage and the lecture discuss the origin of a mysterious sound that many Russian submarines reported hearing between 1960 and the 1980s. They were called the "quackers" because of the Russian word for frog croaks, that as Marines from the North Atlantic and Arctic ocean noted, were very similar to the mysterious sound. The passage proposes three theories that would explain this phenomenon but the lecturer points out several flaws in them, effectively casting doubt on them.
First, the author of the passage presents the idea that Orcas might have produced the sounds in their courtship rituals. It is mentioned that orcas are known to live in the same areas that the submarines reported the noises. Furthermore, the passage points out that the sounds that these orcas emit are very similar to the ones reported. The lecturer challenges this point. She argues that while orcas are indeed known to inhabit those areas, they live close to their surface, while submarines operate in the depths of the sea. Moreover, she mentions that the submarines would have detected the orcas with their sonars.
Second, The passage presents a theory in which giant squids produced the sounds. It is noted that Giant squids are very intelligent and that they may have approached the submarines out of curiosity. The passage adds that because of their soft body they would pass undetected by the sonars. The lecturer rebuts this argument. She says that while this theory is more likely, It does not address the fact that the noises started in the 1960s and suddenly stopped two decades later. She explains that Giant squid have always lived there, and it does not make sense that the noises have stopped nor that they started suddenly.
Finally, The passage suggests that military technology from other nation may have been involved. The Text puts forth the idea that foreign technology may have developed a way to pass unnoticed by sonars and perhaps emitted the sounds intentionally. The lecturer cast doubt on this claim. She argues that the sounds were reported to move very fast, faster than any submarine foreign or otherwise. Furthermore, she notes that Russians should also have heard the engine of such a submarine, which was not reported.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, may, moreover, second, so, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 24.0 12.0772626932 199% => OK
Pronoun: 50.0 22.412803532 223% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1892.0 1373.03311258 138% => OK
No of words: 373.0 270.72406181 138% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.07238605898 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39467950092 4.04702891845 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43213340018 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 145.348785872 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.501340482574 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 569.7 419.366225166 136% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 3.25607064018 369% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.0716947603 49.2860985944 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.6 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.65 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.6 7.06452816374 51% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.27373068433 257% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.437142155359 0.272083759551 161% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.122919180356 0.0996497079465 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0818877615384 0.0662205650399 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.262393460517 0.162205337803 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0102162864029 0.0443174109184 23% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.92 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 65.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.5 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.