Altruistic behaviour of people and animals.
The reading and lecture are both about the altruism of people and animal. The author believes that both the people and mammals do selfless acts and provide some examples. On the other hand, the speaker challenges the claim of the author. He asserted that people and animals do not do any tasks without any interest and he also corroborated his claim by giving some instances.
First of all, the author claims that people often share their foods with other people and sometimes they donate any organ of the body to their relatives or even to stranger, all these activities exhibits that people are not always concern about their own interest. In contrast, the lecturer argues that every people have the desire for appreciation and fames. They might not get any monetary benefit by donating organ, but they will receive praise from the society, which is also valuable like money.
Secondly, the writer gave the example of the sentinel of Meekart and contends that animals also have the altruistic behavior. The sentinel of Meekart guards against the possible attacks by predators. It warns the other members to be in safe place without having been care of it’s own life. The lecturer, however rebuts the writer’s claim that as the sentinel first informed about the possible attack so it goes to safe place only after warning to other members of the team.
Finally, the author claims that both people and animals acts are selfless and he gave some examples to assert his claim. On the other hand, the lecturer refutes the author’s claim and showed that people as well as animals actually do not have any altruistic behavior, which seems selfless to us. He puts forward and establishes that even the act of donating own organ has some other benefits, which is not less than monetary value.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-04-17 | Yam Kumar Oli | 35 | view |
| 2023-04-17 | Yam Kumar Oli | 52 | view |
| 2023-03-14 | Anurag96 | 80 | view |
| 2023-02-26 | Muggle | 94 | view |
| 2023-01-02 | villian7 | 3 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 485, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...r warning to other members of the team. Finally, the author claims that both peo...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, well, in contrast, as well as, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1505.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 305.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93442622951 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17902490978 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.34181002082 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504918032787 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 471.6 419.366225166 112% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.2831771438 49.2860985944 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.5 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7857142857 21.698381199 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.57142857143 7.06452816374 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.138064063104 0.272083759551 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0523342719978 0.0996497079465 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0491075766815 0.0662205650399 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0875989407395 0.162205337803 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.033817425423 0.0443174109184 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.78 8.42419426049 92% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.