The reading passage and the lecture have a discussion on the advantages of humans colonizing asteroids. The authors mention three potential options, On the contrary, the lecturer considers none of them would be persuasive will certainty.
First, the author claims that low gravity on the asteroids will make operation easier. However, it has been opposed by the professor with new proof. The professor says that the low gravity will bring health problems to workers, such as losing muscles and decreasing bone density. That is why the opinion of the reading has been challenged heavily.
Moreover, the article suggests that mining asteroids' valuable elements are a profitable investment. On the other hand, the lecturer states that the cost of mining activities is possible to cost more than the investment. To transport the resources back to the earth might cost a fortune, not to mention that the price of elements in the market is unstable. This differs from the reading as well.
Finally, the author believes asteroids are easy to reach, while the professor in the listening material maintains that transportation is a challenge, The way to asteroids might be easy but the te way back has much uncertainty. Orbiting a planet is a crucial consideration for the mission. Thus, the reading passage has been refuted again.
Therefore, the speaker departs totally from the opinions on the topics made in the reading.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The reading passage and the lecture have...
^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...em would be persuasive will certainty. First, the author claims that low gravit...
^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...This differs from the reading as well. Finally, the author believes asteroids a...
^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...eading passage has been refuted again. Therefore, the speaker departs totally f...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, so, therefore, thus, well, while, such as, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 22.412803532 45% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1190.0 1373.03311258 87% => OK
No of words: 230.0 270.72406181 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.17391304348 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.89432290496 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76118108479 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 131.0 145.348785872 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.569565217391 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 360.0 419.366225166 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.5324113508 49.2860985944 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.0 110.228320801 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4285714286 21.698381199 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.64285714286 7.06452816374 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.236100177897 0.272083759551 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.062601256498 0.0996497079465 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0564707587436 0.0662205650399 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.104307111795 0.162205337803 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0622904804192 0.0443174109184 141% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 13.3589403974 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.41 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.03 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.