The reading and the lecture are about a salt increment in the lake, which is posing a major problem, and they both suggest possible solutions. The writer believes that the lake salt can be dealt with and provides three solutions. However, the lecturer contends that all claims made by the author are not realistic and impractical.
First and foremost, the author of the reading states that removing the salt, using facilities to heat the water will maintain the lake's health. Because salt and solid chemical components will be left behind and this will ensure that the lake is salt-free. This idea is challenged by the lecturer. He claims that the solid materials that are dissolved contain many toxic chemical elements, like selenium. Additionally, he points out that these elements are prone to be carried by wind and rise a great risk.
Secondly, the author states that combining seawater with the lake by constructing pipes to transport it, will decrease the increment of salt. The lecturer, however, asserts that the government of that nearby area cannot fund pipeline construction. He goes on to say that the pipes are expensive as well as the constructing process.
Also, the reading passage notes how building walls is necessary for dividing the large and smallest parts, and, that it is, therefore, important for controlling the water flow from other sources. In contrast, the lecturer's stance is that the walls will not be durable for the long term, since there are active geological activities that will result in a collapse of walls.
As you can see, the author and the lecturer hold different views about solutions to prevent increasing salt intake.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 131, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lakes'' or 'lake's'?
Suggestion: lakes'; lake's
...ies to heat the water will maintain the lakes health. Because salt and solid chemical...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 105, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e by constructing pipes to transport it, will decrease the increment of salt. The...
^^
Line 4, column 214, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lecturers'' or 'lecturer's'?
Suggestion: lecturers'; lecturer's
...ow from other sources. In contrast, the lecturers stance is that the walls will not be du...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, in contrast, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1392.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 275.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06181818182 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07223819929 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58717498059 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.578181818182 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 418.5 419.366225166 100% => 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: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.1270700341 49.2860985944 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.4285714286 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6428571429 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.28571428571 7.06452816374 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.302908866688 0.272083759551 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0923480682394 0.0996497079465 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0878733769563 0.0662205650399 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142226615445 0.162205337803 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0744170811975 0.0443174109184 168% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 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: 12.07 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => 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?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.