TPO-32 Integrated Writing
Starting in the 1960s and continuing until the 1980s, sailors in Russian submarines patrolling the North Alantic and Arctic Ocean would occasionally hear strange sounds. These underwater noises reminded the submarine crews of frog croaks, so they called the sounds “quackers” (from the Russian word for frog sounds). The sources of the sound seemed to be moving with great speed and agility; however, the submarines’ sonar (a method of detecting objects underwater) was unable to detect any solid moving objects in the area. There are several theories about what might have caused the odd sounds.
The first theory suggests that the strange noises were actually the calls of male and female ocra whales during a courtship ritual. Orca whales are known to inhabit the areas where the submarines were picking up the bizarre noises. Orcas have been studied extensively, and the sounds they make when trying to attract a male are similar to those that the submarines were detecting.
A second idea is that the sounds were caused by giant squid. Giant squids are gaint marine invertebrates that live deep in the ocean and prey on large fish. They are difficult to detect by sonar because they have soft bodies with no skeleton. Not much is known about giant squid behavior, but their complex brains suggest they are intelligent animals. It is possible they have the ability to emit sound, and perhaps they approached the submarines out of curiosity.
A third theory suggests the Russian submarines were picking up stray sounds from some military technology, like another country’s submarines that were secretly patrolling the area. Perhaps the foreign submarines did not register on sonar because they were using a kind of technology specifically designed to make them undetectable by sonar. The strange froglike sounds may have been emitted by the foreign submarines unintentionally.
The reading and the listening is about "quackers" which was an unknown source sound had heard by Russian submarines occasionally from the 1960s to 1980s. The writer provides three hypotheses to the finding the source of that sound. However, the professor disputes all assumptions by saying that there have big problems with all rationals.
First of all, the author claims that since ocras were lived that areas where Russian submarines picking up that strange sound and sound were so similar, this sound must be from female orca which asking attention from male ocra. The speaker, on the other hand, says that even though this assumption seems plausible but it was not like that. He further informs that ocra normally live on the upper surface of the water, and the submarine stayed at deep sea; as a result, that sound would not be able to pick from the submarine.
Secondly, the writer provokes giant squids might be the responsible for that sound as their body does not have any skeleton, and so the submarine couldn't able to detect them. The professor rebuts this point by saying that even though the giant squids live at the deep sea, they did not produce that sound. To prove it, he claims that that sound only exists for twenty years, yet those giant squids have been living that place for a long time and even now.
The third assumption suggests on the reading is that that sound might have come from other countries submarines which were not registered their sonar because of their secret intention. The professor claims that this is a bad reasoning. He states that there were no such submarines which were able to move at such high speed, and a submarine must have its engine sound. As a result, this point is wrong.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 60, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... listening is about 'quackers' which was an unknown source sound had he...
^^
Line 5, column 147, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...have any skeleton, and so the submarine couldnt able to detect them. The professor rebu...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, second, secondly, so, third, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 24.0 12.0772626932 199% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 22.412803532 161% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1445.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 301.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 4.80066445183 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.37286529953 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.524916943522 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 418.5 419.366225166 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.2666002743 49.2860985944 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.153846154 110.228320801 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1538461538 21.698381199 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.23076923077 7.06452816374 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 4.33554083885 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.447293034325 0.272083759551 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.145718785654 0.0996497079465 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.112658276319 0.0662205650399 170% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.269998104705 0.162205337803 166% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0569532405709 0.0443174109184 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 65.05 53.8541721854 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.86 12.2367328918 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.35 8.42419426049 87% => OK
difficult_words: 49.0 63.6247240618 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.