presence of human on venus
The reading and the lecture are both about maintaining human presence on the Venus. The author of the reading believes that this is an impossible proposal. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article. He believes that establishing a floating station in the atmosphere of Venus instead of its surface will make this plan feasible.
First of all, the author points out that the atmospheric pressure on the surface of the Venus is higher than the Earth’s atmospheric pressure. It is mentioned that all spacecrafts and stations landing on the Venus surface will be demolished under such a high pressure. This point is challenged by the lecturer. He says that around 50 kilometers above the Venus’ surface, the atmospheric pressure is approximately equal to the Earth’s pressure. Thus, stations won’t be crushed.
Secondly, the author contends there are no resources of water on the surface of Venus and its atmosphere is mainly composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and sulfuric acid. So there is a shortage of oxygen and water which are vital for human living. The lecturer rebuts this argument. He suggests that utilizing a chemical process, we are able to make water and oxygen from the components of atmosphere and there is no need to import water and oxygen.
Finally, the author states that due to the thickness of the clouds that fill the atmosphere, very little sunlight reaches the surface of Venus. The article establishes that this little amount of sunlight prevents the use of solar power cells. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits that clouds in the level mentioned above are not very thick. He declares that these clouds can reflect the sunlight. Therefor, the station can exploit solar power cells to produce electricity by the reflected light .
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-14 | Zmx_6 | 80 | view |
| 2023-07-14 | Zmx_6 | 80 | view |
| 2023-07-06 | Hrushikesh_Vaddoriya | 3 | view |
| 2023-07-06 | Hrushikesh_Vaddoriya | 3 | view |
| 2023-07-06 | Hrushikesh_Vaddoriya | 3 | view |
- giving money to school-aged children as a prize of their good grades 60
- A university has money in its budget to do one thing to improve its facilities for students It can either improve the quality of the technology for example computers and printers that it provides for students Or it can redesign spaces where students hold 73
- Burning coal in power plants produces a waste product called coal ash a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals Environmentalists in the United States are concerned about the damage such harmful chemicals may be doing to the 90
- presence of human on venus 75
- preventing bGlass is a favored building material for modern architecture, yet it is also very dangerous for wild birds. Because they often cannot distinguish between glass and open air, millions of birds are harmed every year when they try to fly through 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 157, 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.
...es that this is an impossible proposal. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made...
^^^
Line 7, column 137, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...y little sunlight reaches the surface of Venus. The article establishes that this...
^^
Line 7, column 499, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...oduce electricity by the reflected light .
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, second, secondly, so, thus, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1511.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 295.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12203389831 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72130213308 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.515254237288 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 470.7 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => 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: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.4012288613 49.2860985944 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.9444444444 110.228320801 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.3888888889 21.698381199 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.44444444444 7.06452816374 63% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 4.45695364238 269% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.202053822608 0.272083759551 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0602306862224 0.0996497079465 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.110585524255 0.0662205650399 167% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117782554548 0.162205337803 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0800952920626 0.0443174109184 181% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 13.3589403974 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.12 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.