Nowadays, architects use glass as a modern material for buildings. These type of material is very pleasant for people although glass victim many birds annually. They can’t understand the differences between glass and air and they crash into the glass. The reading passage debates that there is some solution to prevent this event. The author gives three reasons of support for the assertion. Nevertheless, the professor clarifies that none of the reasons given by the writer are cogent.
First, the article discusses that one-way glasses is a good substitution/. In one-way glasses, people inside the building can see the sky but it’s like a mirror from outside and birds can’t see the inside. Even though, the professor contends that these glasses reflect images for birds but it’s regular for them because they don’t recognize the mirror. Consequently, they think that it’s sky and fly toward it.
Second, the professor opposes the writer’s assertion about colorful glasses. The article asserts that with thin stripes that painted over glasses, people can see the outside but birds would see stripes and change their direction. The professor rejects this idea by mentioning that it’s a regular image for birds. He mentions that it’s like a tree with holes for birds so they can’t figure out the differences. Also, he argues that this idea would dark the inside of the building. As a result, this solution is vague.
Finally, the passage posits that the magnetic field would be the innovative solution. It declares that birds navigate with the aid of the magnetic field of the earth so, the similar idea/ can be used for building to prohibit/ birds crush to building. The professor argues that birds use/ this mechanism for navigation in long travels such as migration before winter. They use the bright light and their eyes for short trips. As a consequence, this solution isn’t practical.
To sum up, the article and the professor have conflicting ideas about using glass as a material for buildings and many evidences support that as the professor claims, it’s too dangerious and life-threatening for birds.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, first, if, nevertheless, second, so, such as, as a result, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 22.412803532 178% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1839.0 1373.03311258 134% => OK
No of words: 347.0 270.72406181 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29971181556 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31600926901 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67806000957 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 145.348785872 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.515850144092 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 543.6 419.366225166 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 3.25607064018 276% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 13.0662251656 168% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.762507067 49.2860985944 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.5909090909 110.228320801 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.7727272727 21.698381199 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.63636363636 7.06452816374 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 4.33554083885 254% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.380417530952 0.272083759551 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.113142005614 0.0996497079465 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0773638959516 0.0662205650399 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.222243738248 0.162205337803 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0588120845617 0.0443174109184 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 53.8541721854 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.16 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.