TPO42
Both the reading and the lecture discuss the solutions for preventing injuries to birds. The reading implies that replacing regular glass, using colorful designs, and making artificial magnetic field are effective solutions. However, the professor strongly disagrees with the reading. Accordingly, he presents three refutations.
First of all, the reading passage mentions that replacing the regular glass with one-way glass will make birds understand that the glass forms a solid barrier. Yet, the lecturer severely challenges this theory by arguing that the one-way glass looks like the mirror. Moreover, one-way glass will reflect sky or trees. As a result, the birds can not understand that one-way glass is solid, and they will still try to fly through it. Apparently, the first theory is not convincing.
Secondly, the passage suggests that people will still be able to see through the openings in the colorful design, while birds will see the stripes and thus avoid flying through the glass. Actually, the speaker seriously contradicts this hypothesis by contending that birds will perceive painted glass as open holes. In other words, the birds will still fly through the glass. Also, the painted glass makes the inside of the building too dark for people living in it. Hence, the colorful design can not prevent birds from flying through the glass.
Last but not least, the article indicates that artificial magnetic field can guide birds away from buildings. Once again, the scholar opposes the statement because birds do not use magnetic field as the tool for navigating in short distance. In fact, birds use their eyes to navigate in short distance. Thus, the artificial magnetic field is not an effective way to prevent birds injuries.
In conclusion, the professor argues against each theory in the reading. That is to say, the professor maintained that the solutions mentioned in the reading passage are not effective at all.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-04-10 | KimiaKermanshahian | 80 | view |
| 2022-04-20 | lhklin | 70 | view |
| 2021-10-25 | DarkSaitama | 70 | view |
| 2021-09-21 | Maryam_zn | 70 | view |
| 2021-04-22 | incoco | 80 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, actually, also, apparently, but, first, hence, however, if, look, moreover, second, secondly, so, still, thus, while, in conclusion, in fact, in short, as a result, first of all, in other words, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1642.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 311.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27974276527 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19942759058 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47351956229 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508038585209 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 467.1 419.366225166 111% => 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: 16.0 8.23620309051 194% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.3878561527 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.1 110.228320801 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.55 21.698381199 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.1 7.06452816374 157% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.592305864788 0.272083759551 218% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.176618220278 0.0996497079465 177% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.136753787416 0.0662205650399 207% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.270782059881 0.162205337803 167% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.177188662673 0.0443174109184 400% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 53.8541721854 120% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 11.0289183223 73% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => 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.