Both the author of the article and the lecturer's statements revolve around whether TED, Turtle excluder devices, is profitable for saving the endangered species of turtle from being cought into shtimp boat nests or not. Regrading the passage, the author profoundly believes that there are three plausible hypotheses which alltogether attest that these pieces of equipments are not successful enough. However, the professor calls all the mentioned claim into question since they lack of enough evidence to be considered credible. In fact, the professor believes that using TED is a reasonable action that can prevents the extiction of turtles and addresses, in detail, the problem with each point made in the reading text.
First and foremost, the author of the reading states that regarding that the turtles seldom cought in the nets whenever the shrimpers cast the nest a vast amount of shrimp will escape too and this make a huge loss for them. The professor repudiates this fllacious belief by refering to more strong evidence. According to the lecturer, this asumption has a tunnel vision and does not take a whole into account. She goes on to say that there is only a limited number of this marine animals, meanwhile there are thousends of active ship-boats on the sea; therefore, this crises happens repeatedly. taking all these facts into account, the number of cought turtles is not negligible during a year. So this hypothsis is excluded and not convincing.
Another hypothesis, prsented by the essayist, hold the idea that the authorities can use alternative methods like limiting the time that shrimp boats are allowed to catch shimps by underwater nets. Nevertheless, the orator explicitly addresses this point when she states that this assumption is not practical while it is impossible to control these amount of boats on a daily basis. She elaborated on this by bringing up the point that in contrary, it is possible to monitor if the boats have the TED before their departure. THus, the secound claim is also ruled out as the result of a more decisive fact and suggestion which is offered by the professor.
Finally, the author brings his arguments to a close by claiming that some kinds of turtles like loggerhead and leatherback are too big to fit into the escape passage. Not surprisingly, the lecturer takes issue with this claim by contending that this obstacle can be easily resolved by a small modification on the TED system. She notes that if the scientists make the rout large enough that all kinds of tutles can scapes from it, this defect can be fixed. Consequently, this hypothesis is also based on wrong reasoning.
To sum up, both the writer and the professor hold confilicting views about TEDs. It is clear that they will have touble finding common grounf on this issue.
No. of Words: 468 250
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 21 in 30
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 12
No. of Words: 468 250
No. of Characters: 2288 1200
No. of Different Words: 251 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.651 4.2
Average Word Length: 4.889 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.555 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 165 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.632 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.403 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.269 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.269 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.084 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 4