The article and the lecture are both about how to protect rhinos, which are hunted by illegal hunters due to the horns. While the article lists three theories to decrease the hunts of rhinos, the professor in the lecture challenges all the theories. She admits rhinos should be protected, but the theories won't work as expected.
Firstly, the reading asserts that since rhinos are slaughtered due to their horns, scientists could remove the horns without hurting them. Professor from the speech casts doubt on the writer's stance. She continues to say that "dehorning" is a time-consuming work for humans. Besides, the removing of corns,which helps rhinos to dig water, might put this kind of wildlife in a disadvantage position.
Secondly, the passage claims that the government should educate people who think the horns are beneficial to health. Unfortunately, the lecturer refutes the speculation and points out it has been a convention, which has been too ancient to change at all.
At last, based on the fact that there are legal horns could be sold, the author holds an opinion that the authorities could sell these horns to satisfy the need of market. The speaker contradicts the perspective by putting forward that legal trade might worsen the problems. According to the speaking, if we legalize the trade of rhino horns, the demand would increase beyond the legal supply, which means the price of horns would increase(rather than decrease in the reading). As a result, the hunting would be encouraged and be more frequent.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 184, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...ssor from the speech casts doubt on the writers stance. She continues to say that &apos...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 315, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , which
...r humans. Besides, the removing of corns,which helps rhinos to dig water, might put th...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, while, kind of, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1290.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 252.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.11904761905 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98428260373 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82401428632 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.611111111111 0.540411800872 113% => OK
syllable_count: 373.5 419.366225166 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.7454139298 49.2860985944 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.2307692308 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3846153846 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.38461538462 7.06452816374 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
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: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => 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: 12.42 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.78 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => 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.