The reading and the lecture are both about mysterious sound, namely quackers, which Russian submarines have detected them during 1960 to 1980 in the North Atlantic Ocean and the Arctic Ocean. The author of the reading believes that the source of this sound is known and suggests three hypotheses about the source of these underwater sounds. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article. He thinks they are not acceptable.
First of all, the author claims that ocra whales are sources of the sound because the detected sound is similar to the sound that a female whale produces to attract a male whale. This point is challenged by the lecturer. He says that ocra whales do not live that much deep in the ocean where submarines are patrolling the area. Moreover, sonar systems can identify whales in the ocean.
Secondly, the author states that the source of quacker sound can be giant squids. This argument is rebutted by the lecturer. He contends that it is unlikely that giant squids suddenly show up in 1960 and then completely diminish after two decades, in 1980.
Finally, the author mentions that the source of quackers is likely submarines of the other countries which move nearby and they use some technologies that can make them undetectable by sonar systems. The lecturer, on the other hand, feels that it is not possible because according to Russian submarines the source of quackers is able to move and change the direction of movement quickly while it is impossible that a submarine can move and change the direction that much fast. In addition, submarines have engines and the sound of engines is detectable while Russian submarines have not reported hearing such sounds.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 342, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... the source of these underwater sounds. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made...
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'finally', 'first', 'if', 'moreover', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'while', 'in addition', 'first of all', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.247588424437 0.261695866417 95% => OK
Verbs: 0.151125401929 0.158904122519 95% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0900321543408 0.0723426182421 124% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0450160771704 0.0435111971325 103% => OK
Pronouns: 0.032154340836 0.0277247811725 116% => OK
Prepositions: 0.138263665595 0.128828473217 107% => OK
Participles: 0.0257234726688 0.0370669169778 69% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.45350108893 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Infinitives: 0.016077170418 0.0208969081088 77% => OK
Particles: 0.0032154340836 0.00154638098197 208% => OK
Determiners: 0.128617363344 0.128158765124 100% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0128617363344 0.0158828679856 81% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0128617363344 0.0114777025283 112% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1707.0 1645.83664459 104% => OK
No of words: 287.0 271.125827815 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.94773519164 6.08160592843 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11595363751 4.04852973271 102% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.355400696864 0.374372842146 95% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.254355400697 0.287516216867 88% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.184668989547 0.187439937562 99% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.101045296167 0.113142543107 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45350108893 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 141.0 145.348785872 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.491289198606 0.539623497131 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 47.8404210266 53.8517498576 89% => OK
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0529801325 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.5 21.7502111507 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.5401897314 49.3711431718 143% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.928571429 132.220823453 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5 21.7502111507 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.928571428571 0.878197800319 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.39072847682 29% => OK
Readability: 45.9355400697 50.5018328374 91% => OK
Elegance: 1.80281690141 1.90840788429 94% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.711535385195 0.549887131256 129% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.119369477996 0.142949733639 84% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.095391857464 0.0787303798458 121% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.583793814459 0.631733273073 92% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.193254172797 0.139662658121 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.331393631673 0.266732575781 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.13279711308 0.103435571967 128% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.44323807888 0.414875509568 107% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0798346945073 0.0530846634433 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.533341491303 0.40443939384 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.123774518263 0.0528353158467 234% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.26048565121 188% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 2.0 3.49668874172 57% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 3.62251655629 55% => OK
Neutral topic words: 6.0 3.1766004415 189% => OK
Total topic words: 10.0 10.2958057395 97% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.