Sea otter population decline
The lecturer apparently disagrees with what is argued in the reading material. According to the reading, the sea otter population off the Alaskan coast has had a noticeable decline in recent years because of the pollution hypothesis. However, the lecturer states that the predator hypothesis is the main cause, and she presents several pieces of evidence to demonstrate her statement.
To start with, the supposition given by the reading states that with the accumulated chemicals ejected from the factories cause the otters to be more prone to get infected and therefore indirectly lead to their deaths. The lecturer, however, suggests this assumption is not supported by any evidence. Say, if the otters really die from life-threatening infections, then there should be some dead otters near the shore. The contradiction is that there no dead otters are found and therefore this theory is weakened. On the other hand, this can support the predator hypothesis which means the otters are eaten by predators.
Furthermore, the reading assumes that the wide range of decline in sea mammals population is more likely attributed to pollution since if this is caused by predators only large predators like the orca could incur the same effect, which seems impossible because orcas prefer to hunt much larger prey. In contrast, the lecturer argues that the orca could hunt otters, as the increased human hunting of whales, the population of whales decreased significantly, as a result, orcas have to change their diet to hunt small sea mammals in order to survive.
Finally, the reading asserts that the uneven pattern of otter decline may be explained by uneven concentrations of pollutants that caused by environmental factors. Pointed out by the lecturer, this phenomenon may be better explained by predator theory. Specifically, the orcas can not hunt in shallow and rocky areas in which the otter population is not declined. This pattern matches the explanation of areas' accessibility to predators, which means otters in inaccessible areas to orcas will suivive.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 72, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'mammals'' or 'mammal's'?
Suggestion: mammals'; mammal's
...s that the wide range of decline in sea mammals population is more likely attributed to...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, but, finally, furthermore, however, if, may, really, so, then, therefore, as to, in contrast, as a result, to start with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 30.3222958057 158% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 5.01324503311 259% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1742.0 1373.03311258 127% => OK
No of words: 329.0 270.72406181 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29483282675 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25891501996 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87164076971 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 145.348785872 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.534954407295 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 545.4 419.366225166 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.4775312866 49.2860985944 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.428571429 110.228320801 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5 21.698381199 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.7857142857 7.06452816374 153% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
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: 0.310722629259 0.272083759551 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0988340077023 0.0996497079465 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0980920994758 0.0662205650399 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.178556126778 0.162205337803 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0325150823402 0.0443174109184 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 13.3589403974 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 53.8541721854 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.0289183223 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.19 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 63.6247240618 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.