waster island population decline.
The article is about the collapse of Easter island and several theories were stated by author to support the collapse of population. However the professor see flaws in the theories and opposes each point and explained that mystery remain unsolved even after long research.
To begin with, the article states that deforestation, uses of fuel for heating and cooking is responsible for decline in population as they thought that tresses would have regenerate but did not. However the professor disagree with this theory and explained that although trees can be responsible for deforestation but can be replaced with grassland and absence of tree no way explain the decline in population.
The another theory stated by the author is that as there were few predator and abundance of food and rats took advantage of it and ate all the fresh shoot of cutted plant and inhibit plant from regrowth. The professor explained that although rats contribute to ecosystem but it does not mean can be responsible for population decline. To carry on this point professor explained that in fact people over there eats rats and even bones of rat found along with the chicken bone at the coast of island.
The other theory explained by author is that war between short-eared and long-eared people is responsible for decline in population . To contrast this point professor explained that in 1770 the population was 3000 and that had declined to two-third and the long and short year theory explained about 100 year ago that is in year 1680.
So these theories by article no way explain the genuine truth about the population collapse in island.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 134, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
... to support the collapse of population. However the professor see flaws in the theories...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 173, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'regenerated'.
Suggestion: regenerated
...as they thought that tresses would have regenerate but did not. However the professor disa...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 197, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...sses would have regenerate but did not. However the professor disagree with this theory...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 48, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ther theory stated by the author is that as there were few predator and abundance...
^^
Line 5, column 64, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun predator seems to be countable; consider using: 'few predators'.
Suggestion: few predators
...ed by the author is that as there were few predator and abundance of food and rats took adv...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 132, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...is responsible for decline in population . To contrast this point professor explai...
^^
Line 7, column 190, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s point professor explained that in 1770 the population was 3000 and that had dec...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, so, third, in fact, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 7.30242825607 246% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1365.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 272.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01838235294 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06108636974 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6095501353 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 145.348785872 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.496323529412 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 413.1 419.366225166 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 21.2450331126 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 37.5158633114 49.2860985944 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.5 110.228320801 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.2 21.698381199 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.7 7.06452816374 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.174476404441 0.272083759551 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0784979323706 0.0996497079465 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0540489426804 0.0662205650399 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107880417093 0.162205337803 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0467458809643 0.0443174109184 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 13.3589403974 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 53.8541721854 98% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 11.0289183223 114% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.7 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 47.0 63.6247240618 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.498013245 122% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.