The article and the lecture are about three theories which have been proposed for clarifying the cause of a particular sound called “quackers” which was heard by sailors in Russian submarines in the 1960s. The author in the passage believes that those hypotheses are well-supported by certain evidence. However, the lecturer casts doubt on statements made in the reading. She thinks that those ideas are in debate since they present some problems for clarifying the cause of this phenomenon.
First, the author claims that one possible explanation is that the strange noises were produced by male or female orca whales which pretended to call each other during a courtship ritual. Nevertheless, this hypothesis is challenged by the lecturer who posits that despite living in these areas, they live on the surface and the submarine detected this sound in deep ocean which implies that it is unlikely that quackers have been heard by sailors and also under the circumstances the submarines’ sonar could have detected their movement.
Second, the article states that due to the soft bodies of giant squids, they could have produced this strange sound without being detected. Nonetheless, the lecturer discredits this point by clarifying that those quackers started being heard in the 1960s but suddenly stopped one decade later, although these marine creatures continue living in those areas which involve that they are not the transmitters of those sounds.
Finally, the author mentions that quackers could be produced by another foreign submarine which was secretly patrolling the area and they were not detected by the submarine’s sonar because the technology used presumably made it undetectable. The lecturer, on the other hand, puts forth the idea that it is unlikely that this type of submarine changed the direction so quickly and even today’s technology cannot make them so fast and silent as undetectable one.
The article and the lecture are about three theories which have been proposed for clarifying the cause of a particular sound called “quackers” which was heard by sailors in Russian submarines in the 1960s. The author in the passage believes that those hypotheses are well-supported by certain evidence. However, the lecturer casts doubt on statements made in the reading. She thinks that those ideas are in debate since they present some problems for clarifying the cause of this phenomenon.
First, the author claims that one possible explanation is that the strange noises were produced by male or female orca whales which pretended to call each other during a courtship ritual. Nevertheless, this hypothesis is challenged by the lecturer who posits that despite living in these areas, they live on the surface and the submarine detected this sound in deep ocean which implies that it is unlikely that quackers have been heard by sailors and also under the circumstances the submarines’ sonar could have detected their movement.
Second, the article states that due to the soft bodies of giant squids, they could have produced this strange sound without being detected. Nonetheless, the lecturer discredits this point by clarifying that those quackers started being heard in the 1960s but suddenly stopped one decade later, although these marine creatures continue living in those areas which involve that they are not the transmitters of those sounds.
Finally, the author mentions that quackers could be produced by another foreign submarine which was secretly patrolling the area and they were not detected by the submarine’s sonar because the technology used presumably made it undetectable. The lecturer, on the other hand, puts forth the idea that it is unlikely that this type of submarine changed the direction so quickly and even today’s technology cannot make them so fast and silent as undetectable one.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-12-03 | Joe Cedillo | 80 | view |
- Many scientists believe it would be possible to maintain a permanent human presence on Mars or the Moon. On the other hand, conditions on Venus are so extreme and inhospitable that maintaining a human presence there would be impossible. First, atmospheric 85
- Undoubtedly, education has improved our lives in several ways. However, some people consider some subjects unnecessary for students while others believe that all the course presented at the university are essential for the development of knowledge among s 76
- Friendships are considered to be the most important aspect of your entire life. There are different opinions about these relationships. Some people prefer having a lot of friends for a short period of time while others prefer having a small number of frie 70
- Participation in a classing or any other type of meeting is a clear example of your capacity. During presentations in front of people, some mistakes are made which make people react in different ways. However, I personally believe that if the lecturer mad 85
- The article and the lecture are about coal ash, which is the waste of power plants, and its effect into the environment consequently, it is suggested that new regulations must be incorporated to the process of energy. The author in the passage believes th 80
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, so, well, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 12.0772626932 166% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 22.412803532 165% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1639.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 306.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35620915033 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18244613648 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86648999989 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 145.348785872 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.555555555556 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 503.1 419.366225166 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 30.0 21.2450331126 141% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 84.5558395381 49.2860985944 172% => OK
Chars per sentence: 163.9 110.228320801 149% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.6 21.698381199 141% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.2 7.06452816374 144% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.493686056524 0.272083759551 181% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.187147747857 0.0996497079465 188% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.238387945907 0.0662205650399 360% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.30284720315 0.162205337803 187% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.226316459044 0.0443174109184 511% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.1 13.3589403974 143% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.03 53.8541721854 76% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.0289183223 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.4 12.2367328918 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 10.498013245 133% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => 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.