The reading and lecture both discuss the solutions that could help in decrease the lack's salinity. While the reading states three solutions to decrease the water's salinity, the professor refutes, saying non of these claims are practical or realistic.
Firstly, the article states that we can evaporate the water from the lack to collect the salt. Moreover, we can cool that steam to reverse it to water again. However, the professor argues this notion by saying that this would decrease the salinity, but this will create new problems. For example, when the water evaporate, it left solid materials behind. Furthermore, this sold materials contains chemicals like selinum. So, these toxic materials can get into the air and these cause dangerous health problems.
In addition, the reading avers that we can ad water from ocean to the lake. As a result, we can decrease the lake's salinity. On the other hand, the professor contradicts this point by explaining that this would limit the salinity, but this method needs canal construction. In fact, this will cost the government a lot of money. In addition, the government does not has enough resources. This is because the ocean is one thousand coulometer. Consequently, building the canal will be very expensive.
Finally, the article shows that we can build divided walls in the lack. So, the salt will be collected at the small area. Nevertheless, the professor questions this idea by pointing out that this walls can not stay for long time due to the social activities. For instance, these wall will destroyed on short time because the earth quick. Consequently, the water that contains low salt will be mixed with the water that contains high level of salt again.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 84, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lacks'' or 'lack's'?
Suggestion: lacks'; lack's
...lutions that could help in decrease the lacks salinity. While the reading states thre...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 157, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'waters'' or 'water's'?
Suggestion: waters'; water's
... states three solutions to decrease the waters salinity, the professor refutes, saying...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 110, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lakes'' or 'lake's'?
Suggestion: lakes'; lake's
... lake. As a result, we can decrease the lakes salinity. On the other hand, the profes...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 366, Rule ID: DOES_X_HAS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'have'? As 'do' is already inflected, the verb cannot also be inflected.
Suggestion: have
...y. In addition, the government does not has enough resources. This is because the o...
^^^
Line 5, column 366, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'have'
Suggestion: have
...y. In addition, the government does not has enough resources. This is because the o...
^^^
Line 7, column 290, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'destroy'
Suggestion: destroy
...tivities. For instance, these wall will destroyed on short time because the earth quick. ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, moreover, nevertheless, so, while, for example, for instance, in addition, in fact, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 5.04856512141 317% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1441.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 285.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05614035088 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57105607331 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.536842105263 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 425.7 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.6222316833 49.2860985944 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 72.05 110.228320801 65% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.25 21.698381199 66% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 7.06452816374 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => 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: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.108153102722 0.272083759551 40% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0357125444092 0.0996497079465 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0237737985935 0.0662205650399 36% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0657264623151 0.162205337803 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0350180975688 0.0443174109184 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.5 13.3589403974 71% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.73 53.8541721854 122% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 11.0289183223 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.48 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.66 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.