The reading and the passage are both contradicting with each other, in terms of the use of turtle excluder device (TED) in order to protect the turtle species. The author of the article has criticized the TED technique by stating that there are other ways that can be beneficial to protect the sea turtles. However, the lecturer casts doubt about the claim mentioned in the article and refutes all the theories presented in the passage.
First of all, according to the reading shrimpers would lose more shrimps with the use of TED. Also, shrimpers rarely catch turtle through the nets. On the contrary, the speaker negates the argument presented in the passage. Furthermore, he agrees with the statement saying that they rarely catch the sea turtle in a month. However, there are thousands of shrimp boats operated in all over the united states which mean thousands of turtle may get caught through the shrimp boats. Hence, it will create a danger for the sea turtles.
Secondly, the author presents the method which may be more effective than the TED. In this technique, shrimp boats are not allowed to use their nets underwater more than the specified time limit. Although the lecturer refutes this by asserting that it will be hard for the government to keep an eye on every boat which is operated in the united states. Also, he added, TED is easier to enforce in the boat rather than using the other method which may not be applicable in this case.
Finally, it is mentioned in the article that some TED is too small to catch large turtles in the ocean and in such case, the turtle may not be able to escape from the standard TED. On the other hand, the speaker believes that there are other ways from which TED can be modified in the specific area where it is needed. Hence, making a device larger than the standard device would not be a problem.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...the theories presented in the passage. First of all, according to the reading s...
^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...l create a danger for the sea turtles. Secondly, the author presents the method...
^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ch may not be applicable in this case. Finally, it is mentioned in the article ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 30.3222958057 145% => 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: 1533.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 328.0 270.72406181 121% => OK
Chars per words: 4.6737804878 5.08290768461 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25567506705 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.28886674808 2.5805825403 89% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.463414634146 0.540411800872 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 468.9 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.634454749 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.8125 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.125 7.06452816374 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 4.33554083885 231% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.147766473337 0.272083759551 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.051452773217 0.0996497079465 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.053578303984 0.0662205650399 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0934411793998 0.162205337803 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.061858767292 0.0443174109184 140% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 13.3589403974 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 68.1 53.8541721854 126% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.81 12.2367328918 80% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.52 8.42419426049 89% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.