In this set of materials, the reading passage states that Salton See’s salinity has been increasing for years and soon will be unable to support fish and bird populations. However, the professor asserts that it would be great if there was any solution for this problem but there is not. She refutes all the solutions and believes that they are not practical or realistic.
First of all, it is mentioned in the passage that direct removal of salt from the lake’s water can reduce the problem. In the contrast, the lecturer claims that in the process of removing salt, other dangerous chemical such as selenium spread to the air and if people breath them in, it is dangerous for their health. Therefore, since harmful substances are by product of salt removal process, this idea is not convincing.
Furthermore, the reading argues that diluting the salt level with water from the ocean is a possible solution. On the contrary, the professor explains that the nearest ocean is 1000 Km far from the lake and this project requires to construct a lot of pipes which is too much expensive. The government cannot afford to pay for the suggested project. Hence, financial difficulties is the main barrier for this solution.
Finally, the passage suggests constructing walls to divide the lake into several sections and control the main section salinity by freshwater from small rivers. Conversely, the professor clarifies that earth activities like earthquakes is common in this area. After an earthquake, the walls will collapse, and the water will mix with the main section. So, it is useless to construct walls because it is a short time solution.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 229, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'constructing'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'require' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: constructing
...from the lake and this project requires to construct a lot of pipes which is too much expens...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, so, therefore, such as, first of all, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1382.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 275.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02545454545 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07223819929 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66082445435 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 145.348785872 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.596363636364 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 410.4 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.1649457851 49.2860985944 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.7142857143 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6428571429 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.5 7.06452816374 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => 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: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => 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: 11.89 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.83 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.