Both essay and lecture discuss the colonization of asteroids. The author believes that this action is practical, and he prepares three reasons for his claim. On the other hand, the lecturer refuses all of these explanations. He believes that none of these reasons are enough to justify the colonization of asteroids.
First of all, the writer of the article points out that because the asteroids are smaller than planets, they possess less gravity field. Because of this concept, landing and taking off would be easier in the asteroids. Moreover, astronomers can carry equipment with less afford. The professor, however, disagrees with this idea. He mentions that the lower gravity field is risky and might cause some health problems. For example, in the long run, muscles and bones would get weaker, which brings on some serious problems.
Secondly, the essay asserts that there are a lot of precious stones such as gold and platinum on the asteroids. Accordingly, investors can obtain more than what they spend on these projects. The presenter challenges this idea by mentioning that the cost of traveling and transferring these metals might overtake the value of them. Furthermore, he declares that there is no grantee that these stones do not lose their value when they reach the earth.
Finally, the article states that some asteroids get close to the earth's orbit in some particular periods, which provide an ideal opportunity for us to travel there. The professor rebuts this theory. He makes this clear that although it might be easy to go to the asteroids, returning from them would be a severe problem. He avers that some asteroids get far away from earth's orbit, which makes it challenging to come back to the earth.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 409, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'coming'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'challenge' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: coming
...arths orbit, which makes it challenging to come back to the earth.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, for example, such as, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 22.412803532 170% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => 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: 1444.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 287.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03135888502 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11595363751 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54367333022 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 145.348785872 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.581881533101 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 432.0 419.366225166 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.4153158497 49.2860985944 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 80.2222222222 110.228320801 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.9444444444 21.698381199 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.05555555556 7.06452816374 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0317848161654 0.272083759551 12% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.00954386937738 0.0996497079465 10% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.015803280619 0.0662205650399 24% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0182625079995 0.162205337803 11% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0139132680558 0.0443174109184 31% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.2 13.3589403974 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 53.8541721854 120% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 11.0289183223 73% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.78 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => 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?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.