Transient lunar phenomena (TLP) are relatively brief flashes of light that appear to come from the surface of the Moon. Such flashes of light have been observed for centuries by both amateur and professional astronomers, and several theories have been put forward to explain them.
One theory is that TLP are not genuine lunar phenomena, but only random observational errors caused by defects in the telescopes some observers use. Optical instruments such as telescopes or microscopes are complex pieces of machinery; even small flaws in their design can create artificial optical impressions like flashes or other distortions in the visual field. To an observer, a flash of light caused by an instrument error may sometimes look like a real phenomenon taking place in nature.
A second theory is that meteors striking the Moon cause TLP. Because the Moon has no atmosphere, meteors often reach the lunar surface. In fact, meteors strike the Moon every day. According to the meteor theory, when meteors strike the lunar surface, they explode, creating enough heat energy to appear as a flash of light to observers on Earth. When people observe TLP, they are actually observing flashes of light generated by meteor impacts.
A third theory is that TLP are the result of lunar rocks emitting their own light by a process called thermoluminescence. It is known that the Moon does in fact contain certain rocks that are capable of generating light in this way when they are heated by the Sun. This is strong empirical support that TLP are caused by thermoluminescence.
The reading passage explores the generation of transient lunar phenomena. The professor's speech deals with the same idea. However, he thinks that those theories cannot fully demonstrate it. And in the lecture, he uses three specific points to support his idea.
First, even though the reading suggests that it is random observational falsehoods that lead to TLP, the professor contends that if so, the spaces where we observe these phenomena should be random as well. To be more exact, we actually find something like these in a specific location on the Moon. Obviously, the professor's argument disproves its counterpart in the reading.
Moreover, contrary to the reading's statement that meteors striking the Moon results in brief flashes of light that we are talking about, the professor argues that the exploration of meteors cannot be the reason definitely. Then the professor proves this idea is indefensible with the fact that the flash of light comes from the exploration of meteors just lasts one second. On the contrary, we can observe TLP for about twenty minutes. In other words, there must be other causes.
Finally, the professor asserts that the energy that lunar rocks emit is weaker than what we usually see on the Moon, whereas the author of the reading claims that thermoluminescence contributes to these gorgeous flashes of light. The professor supports this idea by pointing out that the light that lunar rocks produce is so subtle that absolutely it cannot be observed by us experts.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 79, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...ation of transient lunar phenomena. The professors speech deals with the same idea. Howeve...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 313, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...ic location on the Moon. Obviously, the professors argument disproves its counterpart in t...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 27, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'readings'' or 'reading's'?
Suggestion: readings'; reading's
...the reading. Moreover, contrary to the readings statement that meteors striking the Moo...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, then, well, whereas, in brief, talking about, in other words, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 7.30242825607 14% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1261.0 1373.03311258 92% => OK
No of words: 246.0 270.72406181 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12601626016 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96035189615 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68574931604 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 145.348785872 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.60162601626 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 378.0 419.366225166 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 65.7508296346 49.2860985944 133% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.0 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9230769231 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.0 7.06452816374 156% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.176616286925 0.272083759551 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0585918837072 0.0996497079465 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0493167620518 0.0662205650399 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10297203252 0.162205337803 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0488392125856 0.0443174109184 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.