TPO32
The reading passage deals with the issue of what might be the cause of the strange sounds heard by submarines called "quackers". The professor focuses on the same issue. However, she believes that those causes listed in the reading passage are obviously wrong. And in the lecture, the professor makes three specific points to back up her point of view.
In the first place, even though the reading passage suggests that the sounds are maybe the calls of orca whales, the professor claims in the lecture that it is highly doubted even though it seems reasonable. That is because orca whales live on the surface while submarines patrol deep in the ocean, which means it is impossible for sailors on submarines to hear the sound. Besides, orca whales will be detected by people if they occurred while people are sailing. Apparently, the professor's argument disproves its counterpart in the reading.
In the second place, contrary to the statement in the reading passage that the sounds were due to giant squid, the professor argues that this point is unwarranted. Then she supports this point with the fact that the sound stopped 20 years after it had been detected in 1960s by Russian people but giant squid exists in the ocean from past to present. In other words, giant squid would not just stopped making sound in 1980s.
Further, the professor states that submarines cannot catch up with military technology while the author of the reading claims that Russian submarines picked up the sounds from it. The professor shows that this claim is very weak by pointing out that the engine noise of military technology cannot compare to "quackers".
To sum up, the professor precisely discovers the flaws in the reading passage and successfully reveals that the arguments made in the reading are incorrect.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 481, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...ile people are sailing. Apparently, the professors argument disproves its counterpart in t...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 267, Rule ID: IN_1990s[1]
Message: The article is probably missing here: 'in the 1960s'.
Suggestion: in the 1960s
...ped 20 years after it had been detected in 1960s by Russian people but giant squid exist...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 416, Rule ID: IN_1990s[1]
Message: The article is probably missing here: 'in the 1980s'.
Suggestion: in the 1980s
...uid would not just stopped making sound in 1980s. Further, the professor states that ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, besides, but, first, however, if, may, second, so, then, while, in other words, to sum up, in the first place, in the second place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 30.3222958057 152% => 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: 1531.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 302.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06953642384 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1687104957 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70694300988 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.519867549669 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 448.2 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
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: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.0410594319 49.2860985944 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.357142857 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5714285714 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.1428571429 7.06452816374 144% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => 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: 0.292553589753 0.272083759551 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0985318082487 0.0996497079465 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0857241783077 0.0662205650399 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149039394419 0.162205337803 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0768797881512 0.0443174109184 173% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 13.3589403974 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.55 8.42419426049 90% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.