The reading and listening materials have a debate on how to save the rhinoceros. The writer proposes three ways, nevertheless, the speaker argues that all of those ways have significant weaknesses.
The writer claims that wildlife experts can remove Rhino horns, however the speaker views this issue from an opposite angle. According to her, this idea is not practical or good enough, since it will decrease Rhinos' survival rates, she advances the theory by saying that, although we have money and time to settle them, they still might not survive after the surgery. On the other hand, this may help them avoid being killed by poachers, however, they use the horn to dig for water, find food, and protect youngsters, so if they do not have the horn, it is a disadvantage living in wild.
The author states that they can educate consumers, but the speaker opposes the idea and takes the view that it is difficult to educate people with strong and old beliefs. She indicates the thought that rhino horn can heal from very ancient and old cultures which may last for a thousand years. So new scientific pieces of evidence are unlikely to change people's minds.
The reading argues that the government should legalize the sale of rhino horns. By contrast, in accordance with the speaker, the passage's claim does not hold water because this may have unpredictable results. She contends that people now do not buy it because it is illegal if the government sales were legal, people think it is acceptable to buy it, as a result, the demand will highly increase, leading to larger markets. So the price will become expensive again, which makes the poachers kill more rhinos in order to gain numerous profits.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...hose ways have significant weaknesses. The writer claims that wildlife experts can...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, still, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1419.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 291.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87628865979 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13022058845 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.40423629145 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.625429553265 0.540411800872 116% => OK
syllable_count: 430.2 419.366225166 103% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.1354392988 49.2860985944 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.25 110.228320801 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.25 21.698381199 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5 7.06452816374 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.0 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: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.32 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.9 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => 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.