TPO51
The professor revises the idea presented in the passage that proposes three interesting characteristics of elephants and refutes each of the points made in the text explaining that these beliefs are due to a couple of misinterpretations of elephant's behavior.
First of all, the reading passage states that the elephants are capable of understanding that they will die soon due to the fact that the older ones break away from their herds and proceed near water to live and die alone. On the other hand, the professor asserts that this kind of behavior does not necessarily mean that they know death is approaching. In fact, when elephants grow older, they lose their practical teeth functioning. Thus, they will have difficulty chewing the plants and break away to find softer plants, which are mostly found near water. Accordingly, the first point does not hold true due to the lack of compelling evidence.
Secondly, the professor's opinion contradicts the second point mentioned in the passage that the elephants have the artistic ability. She clarifies this argument by pointing out that elephants have sensitive ears and consequently, they can be trained by humans. Actually, trainers help elephants to exploit and repeat the brushstrokes and create several artistic pieces by touching their ears. Therefore, elephants do not know the value of art. Hence, the second reason has serious deficiencies regarding the main point of the passage.
Finally, the reading material proposes that it has been widely acknowledged that elephants are afraid of mice. Conversely, the professor holds a different idea. She believes that elephants react fearfully to the mice since they are an unfamiliar type of animal, which is a common behavior. Of course, if elephants share their living place with mice, for instance in the zoos, they realize that the mice are not threatening and as a result do not mind them. So, the third explanation is not convincing, too.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 15, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...of compelling evidence. Secondly, the professors opinion contradicts the second point me...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, actually, consequently, conversely, finally, first, hence, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thus, for instance, in fact, kind of, of course, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1647.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 317.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19558359621 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21953715646 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80492556048 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.574132492114 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 492.3 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => 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: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.4515486391 49.2860985944 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.9375 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8125 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.75 7.06452816374 195% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 4.45695364238 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 10.7273730684 172% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.