TPO34
The reading passage deals with the issue of the extinction of sea cows in 1768. The professor's talk focuses on the same topic. However, he believes that none of the theories stated in the reading are convincing. And in the lecture, the professor makes three specific points to back up his conception.
In the first place, whereas the reading suggests that the extinction of the sea cows may due to overhunting by native Siberian people, the professor claims that it is groundless. Because the sea cows were massive creatures who weighed about 10 tons and were up to 9 meters long, and the population of native Siberian people was not large, which showed that only a small amount of sea cows would be enough for Siberian people to eat. Apparently, the professor's argument disproves its counterpart in the reading.
In the second place, in opposition to the statement in the reading that ecosystems disturbances may have caused the population of kelp, the primary food source of sea cows, to decline, the professor argues that it turns out to be inadequate. Then he supports this point with the fact that ecosystems disturbances couldn't only affect the kelp species and there must be other native animals been influenced in the meantime. However, no recording indicates that this had happened.
Further, the author of the reading asserts that European fur traders had caused the extinction of the sea cows. Nevertheless, the professor illustrates that this theory is unwarranted by pointing out that the population of sea cows had already decreased for hundreds of years before Europeans arrived, which means Europeans couldn't be the main reason for the extinction.
To sum up, the professor precisely discovers the flaws in the reading passage and successfully reveals that the arguments in the passage are incorrect.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 450, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...Siberian people to eat. Apparently, the professors argument disproves its counterpart in t...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 314, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...h the fact that ecosystems disturbances couldnt only affect the kelp species and there ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 325, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...uropeans arrived, which means Europeans couldnt be the main reason for the extinction. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, so, then, whereas, 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 : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => 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: 1530.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 299.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11705685619 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75644131133 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.528428093645 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 456.3 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 73.5794864647 49.2860985944 149% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.692307692 110.228320801 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 21.698381199 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.84615384615 7.06452816374 139% => 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 : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.389877049232 0.272083759551 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121485199961 0.0996497079465 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.114382033097 0.0662205650399 173% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192509343276 0.162205337803 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.121905545131 0.0443174109184 275% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.