Summarize the main points in the lecture, and then explain how they cast doubt on the ideas in the reading passage.
Passage
Because of its remote location, only a few species of plants and animals thrived on Easter Island, and the water surrounding it contained very few fish. Nevertheless, beginning with extremely limited resources on an isolated island, the native people achieved a very advanced culture, as evidenced by the gigantic monolithic human figures that line the coasts, as well as by other artifacts. The complete collapse of this civilization is still a mystery, but several theories have been put forward.
One theory suggests that the natives of Easter Island cut down large palm forests to clear land for agricultural purposes, fuel for heating and cooking, construction material for pole and thatch houses, and canoes for transportation. In addition, hundreds of ahu, or large stone monuments, were constructed and moved to the coast on rollers made of tree trunks. Assuming that the trees could regenerate quickly enough to sustain the environment, they continued the deforestation, which, in turn, caused serious erosion.
Another theory presents a very different explanation for the decline in the population. Since there were few predators on the island, and an abundance of food, it is thought that rats may have hidden in the canoes of the earliest settlers. When the native people cut and burned trees, the rats prevented regrowth by eating the fresh shoots before they could grow into large plants. With little food and no wood to build canoes to escape, the people perished.
A third theory contends that the population was decimated by a war between short-eared and long-eared people on the island. According to oral history, a plot by the long-eared people to kill the short-eared people was discovered and the short-eared people struck first, driving the long-eared people to a ditch where they were killed and burned.
The lecture discusses the inconsistencies of the three theories mentioned in the passage and claims that none provides a cohesive explanation of why the Easter Island population perished.
To begin with, the lecturer claims that although the islanders cut trees, they planted grass in their place. That grass would be sufficient to prevent erosion. Thus, this evidence undermines the credibility of the deforestation theory that states that cutting trees caused soil erosion, which made agriculture more challenging.
Furthermore, the lecturer claims that islanders used rats as a food source as well as chicken. Rat bones found near chicken bones in Easter Island settlements provide evidence for this claim. Thus, the theory stating that rats ate food supply and prevented tree growth is only partially viable as islanders could eat rats and solve both problems. Moreover, the rats as food stock may suggest control over the rat population.
Finally, we have evidence of two expeditions that measured the decline in population by two-thirds during the eighteenth century. At the same, oral history about the war between islanders is dated back to 1680, which was hundred years before the expeditions. Thus, we cannot use this story to explain the documented population decline.
To sum up, the deforestation theory is not credible because grass prevented erosion, the rats theory doesn't take into account rats being a food source, and the war theory is refuted by the huge gap between the legend and the actual population decline.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-03 | cringelord | 3 | view |
- Summarize the main points in the lecture and then explain how they cast doubt on the ideas in the reading passage Passage Because of its remote location only a few species of plants and animals thrived on Easter Island and the water surrounding it contain 3
- In any situation progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of views Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In deve 83
- Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequence are unclear Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing an 79
- Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing a 79
- Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequence are unclear Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing an 45
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 221, Rule ID: NODT_DOZEN[1]
Message: Use simply: 'a hundred'.
Suggestion: a hundred
...anders is dated back to 1680, which was hundred years before the expeditions. Thus, we ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 102, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...rass prevented erosion, the rats theory doesnt take into account rats being a food sou...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, furthermore, may, moreover, so, third, thus, well, as well as, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => 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: 1294.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 243.0 270.72406181 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32510288066 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94822203886 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71579372784 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.604938271605 0.540411800872 112% => OK
syllable_count: 389.7 419.366225166 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => 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: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.8105601986 49.2860985944 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.833333333 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.25 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06452816374 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.0934937653608 0.272083759551 34% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0378886254333 0.0996497079465 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0412138773355 0.0662205650399 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0566089534296 0.162205337803 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0379043374271 0.0443174109184 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.63 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.