Summarise the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they case doubt on specific points made in the reading passage.
The reading and the lecture are both about theories of what might caused the odd sounds underwater in the 1960's to the 1980's. The author of the reading feels that the theories of the sound being orca whales, squids, and a military technology are plausible. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. She is of opinion that the theories are not credible.
To begin with, the author argues that the calls of male and female orca whales during a courtship ritual are alike to the sound made underwater. Also, the article mentions that the orca whales are known to be near the areas where it was heard. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. The lecturer claims that although the theory seems plausible, it is highly unlikely. She mentions that because the orca whales live near the surface, the submarines would not be able to listen to the sound of the whales because the submarines would be submerged deep underwater.
Secondly, the writer suggests that squids' complex brains suggest they are intelligent animals. In the article, it is said that squids could possibly emit sound and perhaps approach the submarines out of curiosity because they are smart. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that squids were still alive even after the emitted sounds stopped in the 1980's. Therefore, she mentions that the theory of the odd sounds were squids is not plausible at all.
Finally, the author posits that other country's military technology uttered sounds. Moreover, it is stated in the article that they emitted sounds unintentionally and that the sounds were not detectable by the sonar because they used a specific technology to not be found. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that the secret submarine theory does not hold up. He notes that the military technology did not make the same sound and that the submarines could not move as quickly to be detected.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-15 | dentista1985 | 76 | view |
| 2020-01-13 | jiyakavya | 80 | view |
| 2020-01-12 | dentista1985 | 60 | view |
| 2020-01-10 | jiyakavya | 3 | view |
| 2020-01-09 | jiyakavya | 3 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 258, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...nd a military technology are plausible. The lecturer challenges the claims made by ...
^^^
Line 5, column 135, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
... In the article, it is said that squids could possibly emit sound and perhaps approach the sub...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 10.4613686534 229% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1591.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 320.0 270.72406181 118% => OK
Chars per words: 4.971875 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22948505376 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4847169576 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.46875 0.540411800872 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 484.2 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => 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: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.0878036947 49.2860985944 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.5882352941 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8235294118 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.41176470588 7.06452816374 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.27373068433 211% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.101477755798 0.272083759551 37% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0357551581118 0.0996497079465 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0351143117825 0.0662205650399 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.066084279116 0.162205337803 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0242452412711 0.0443174109184 55% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.