tpo 50 the possibility of sending the human to Mars
The material discusses the possibility of the trip to Mars. While the reading mentions three problems of this approach, the listening suggests a solution to each problem in the reading passage.
First, the author states that the trip to Mars will take too long, so the crew should take a lot of food, oxygen, and water, and the cargo capacity is limited. One the other hand, the professor challenges this and posits that the crew could use a special technique called the hydroponic. The lecturer explains that this approach can grow plants in water instead of soil, so they can cultivate their food. Furthermore, they can use it to recycle wastewater and collect clean water for drinking. Moreover, the speaker adds that these plants can absorb the carbon dioxide and release oxygen, so this approach can provide the crew with all essentials for the trip.
Second, the writer points out that Mars has zero gravity, which has a negative effect on the human body, given that it reduces muscle mass and bone density. On the contrary, the professor opposes this and contends that astronauts can use several techniques to manage this problem. The lecturer explains that they can do regular exercises, which prevent the decreasing of the muscle mass and increase the absorption of vitamin D into the bone.
Third, the reading states that solar radiation is very high on Mars, and they cannot take the materials that protect them from this radiation because they are too heavy. Conversely, the professor counters this and brings up that solar radiation is not dangerous all the time, but it happens occasionally. According to the listening, the spaceship can stay in the unshelled area whenever it is safe and moves to the shelled area until the danger will pass.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-11-14 | elaheh eskandari | 80 | view |
| 2022-08-04 | TommyTan | 80 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, first, furthermore, moreover, second, so, third, while, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1467.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 296.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95608108108 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14784890444 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45387508277 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.557432432432 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 440.1 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.1064216434 49.2860985944 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.846153846 110.228320801 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7692307692 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.76923076923 7.06452816374 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
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: 0.0455671884589 0.272083759551 17% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.019830334128 0.0996497079465 20% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0386327416518 0.0662205650399 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0305730807862 0.162205337803 19% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0230050013214 0.0443174109184 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.05 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.