Based on the given materials, the article as well as the lecture discusses croak-like sounds named quakers, which have been reported by Russian sibmarines during their peetrolling process between 1960s and 1980s. Also, these sounds cannot be detected by the submarines' sonar because of moving fast enough. The author states that there are several viable theories regarding to causes of the quackers. That being said, the lecturer provides several ideas to repiudiate this claim.
Initially, the author says that since female orca whales make similar sounds during attracting male of their species, quackers should have been related to orca whales. However, the speaker explains that orcas have lived near surfaces of the sea, while the submarines did their petrolling process in deeper pinpoints. In addition, if any orca whales had moved or lived close to the submarines, the sonar system would have detected the sounds produced by them.
Second, the writer proclaims that quackers should have been produced by giant squids, which are hard to detect because of their soft bodies. Yet again, the lecturer underscores that the squad always lives in the oceans and it is opposite with reports of the submarines. If the main cause of the quackers is the squad, it should not seen any disappearance of the sounds afte 1980s.
The final contention between the reading and the listening passage is military processes of another country's submarines. The author thinks that the quackers would had been emitted by foreign counties' submarines when they were petrolling the area, and preventing for being detected by the others' sonar system, they had used special technlogy. On the other hand, the speaker mentions the reports which shows that the source of the sounds was not stable and moved quickly, but the submarines did not move around.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 259, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'submarines'' or 'submarine's'?
Suggestion: submarines'; submarine's
... these sounds cannot be detected by the submarines sonar because of moving fast enough. Th...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 164, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'have'
Suggestion: have
...e author thinks that the quackers would had been emitted by foreign counties submar...
^^^
Line 4, column 289, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'others'' or 'other's'?
Suggestion: others'; other's
...nd preventing for being detected by the others sonar system, they had used special tec...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, regarding, second, so, well, while, as to, in addition, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1539.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 296.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19932432432 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14784890444 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.41721733523 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.560810810811 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 455.4 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.9768885412 49.2860985944 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.384615385 110.228320801 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7692307692 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.38461538462 7.06452816374 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.395840377707 0.272083759551 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.123415502751 0.0996497079465 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0794675774085 0.0662205650399 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.225351914827 0.162205337803 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0589658612199 0.0443174109184 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.3589403974 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.1 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 63.6247240618 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.