TPO-52-integrated-writing
The passage states that astroid colonization would be a possible idea to obtain in the future and provides some reasons to support this claim. On the other hand, the lecturer refutes the writer's reasons and claims that they are not practical.
First, the article discusses that low gravity of astroids is a great feature of them due to easier landing, take off and carrying more cargo and equipment. The professor challenges this reason by saying that low gravity condition will lead to some health difficulties such as losing muscle mass and bone density even for astronants. Accordingly, this will be more great problem for people who wnat to live in the colony.
Second, the writer asserts that mining precious materials such as gold would be a great opinion to make colonization more profitable. The lecturer agrues this possibity and says that cost of mining and tranportation of mined materials will be considerable and the net profit will be decreased in this case. Furthermore, the value of these materials is for its scarcity on earth. By supplying huge amount of them, they wouldn't be priceless anymore.
Third, the passage claims that there are a lot of reachable and adjucent astroids around the earth invariably. However the professor refutes this advantage by saying that these astroids can be reachable but returning will be a big problem. Since they do not have specific orbit and it is likely they move toward far distances. As a result, coming back from these astroids will be formidable even more than Mars.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 419, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
... By supplying huge amount of them, they wouldnt be priceless anymore. Third, the pas...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 112, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...t astroids around the earth invariably. However the professor refutes this advantage by...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, first, furthermore, however, if, second, so, third, such as, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1278.0 1373.03311258 93% => OK
No of words: 255.0 270.72406181 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.01176470588 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99608801488 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62406571499 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.576470588235 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 392.4 419.366225166 94% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => 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: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.9318882292 49.2860985944 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.3076923077 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6153846154 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.38461538462 7.06452816374 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => 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: 12.0 13.3589403974 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.67 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.