The reading passage and the lecture are both about the puzzling animals' migration in long distances. More specifically, the writer discusses humpback whales could navigate through the oceans by stars. The lecturer in the listening passage disagrees. She believes that there is no connection between their long journey and the navigation by starts, and she provides some evidence to refute all mentioned hypotheses in the article.
First of all, the author begins by stating that whales' brain is much more sophisticated than many other species, which is allowed them to have some superior, such as cognitive ability. The lecturer, however, disagrees. She declares that there is no real link between the degree of the brain's complexity and the capability of navigation by stars in humpback whales. She goes on to say that some animals such as ducks could recognize their migrations route instinctively by navigating through the night sky, but it does not relate to their intelligence.
Furthermore, the author claims that as long as humpback whales' migration occurs in a straight line, there must be an external force to orient them. Again, the lecturer believes there are flaws in the writer's argument. The speaker holds that their outer effect is the Earth Magnetic field, which whales are sensitive to this power, and they could orient themselves when they are migrating within the open oceans at night.
Lastly, the article mentions that according to observing an abnormal behavior by humpback whales called spy-hopping, it would be concluded that they are looking at stars in order to determine their migration avenue. In turn, the professor in the listening part is doubtful that this is accurate. She states that the spy-hopping has nothing to do with managing long distances journey since some animals that never enjoy migration, like sharks, operate in the same way, but in order to prey animals.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 285, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'brains'' or 'brain's'?
Suggestion: brains'; brain's
... no real link between the degree of the brains complexity and the capability of naviga...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 200, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...ecturer believes there are flaws in the writers argument. The speaker holds that their ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, look, so, such as, first of all, in the same way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1599.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 308.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19155844156 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63460972622 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.564935064935 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 490.5 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.0073549914 49.2860985944 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.214285714 110.228320801 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 21.698381199 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.71428571429 7.06452816374 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.390890331043 0.272083759551 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.112052473667 0.0996497079465 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0863925922247 0.0662205650399 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.230411913122 0.162205337803 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.049346205219 0.0443174109184 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.3589403974 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.98 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.