The reading article talks about three possible solutions to avoid birds flying through glass windows and getting hurt. The lecture refuses the theories presented in the article by pointing limitations of it.
First, the reading proposes one-way glass. People inside the building or room can see out but birds and others cannot see in. If birds cannot see through the glass, they will avoid going through the glass window. The lecture refutes this claim by pointing out, outside surface of one- way glass reflects like a mirror, same as the ordinary glass. Birds does not understand mirrors and will try to fly through it. This makes the solution pointless.
Secondly, the passage talks about using colorful designs on the outer surface of glass windows. Birds will see the design and will avoid going through it. Butt, the lecture makes an argument, birds will perceive unpainted openings as holes and will try to fly through it. On the other hand, if designs incorporate small spaces in between, less light will penetrate the room making it dark for occupants.
Lastly, the reading put forth a solution to use powerful electromagnet to steer away birds from buildings. Birds use earth's magnetic field to navigate and this solution will make use of that ability. However, the lecture refutes the claim by pointing out, birds use Earth's magnetic field to navigate for long distances not for short trips. For short distance they rely on their eyes and brightness of light. Moreover, the presenter adds that, building's magnetic field will not be have significant use on steering birds away.
In conclusion, the lecture stresses none of the solutions presented in the reading passage are effective in steering birds away from flying through glass window.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 526, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...significant use on steering birds away. In conclusion, the lecture stresses none...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, lastly, moreover, second, secondly, so, in conclusion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 2.0 10.4613686534 19% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 12.0772626932 17% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 30.3222958057 145% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1477.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 288.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12847222222 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.33909001758 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.510416666667 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 423.0 419.366225166 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.6938375873 49.2860985944 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.0555555556 110.228320801 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.0 21.698381199 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.38888888889 7.06452816374 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.549407039207 0.272083759551 202% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.185386426116 0.0996497079465 186% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.102678360977 0.0662205650399 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.306445375729 0.162205337803 189% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104103494831 0.0443174109184 235% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 13.3589403974 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.72 8.42419426049 92% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => 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.