TPO-32 - Integrated Writing Task
Starting in the 1960s and continuing until the 1980s, sailors in Russian submarines patrolling the North Alantic and Arctic Ocean would occasionally hear strange sounds. These underwater noises reminded the submarine crews of frog croaks, so they called the sounds “quackers” (from the Russian word for frog sounds). The sources of the sound seemed to be moving with great speed and agility; however, the submarines’ sonar (a method of detecting objects underwater) was unable to detect any solid moving objects in the area. There are several theories about what might have caused the odd sounds.
The first theory suggests that the strange noises were actually the calls of male and female ocra whales during a courtship ritual. Orca whales are known to inhabit the areas where the submarines were picking up the bizarre noises. Orcas have been studied extensively, and the sounds they make when trying to attract a male are similar to those that the submarines were detecting.
A second idea is that the sounds were caused by giant squid. Giant squids are gaint marine invertebrates that live deep in the ocean and prey on large fish. They are difficult to detect by sonar because they have soft bodies with no skeleton. Not much is known about giant squid behavior, but their complex brains suggest they are intelligent animals. It is possible they have the ability to emit sound, and perhaps they approached the submarines out of curiosity.
A third theory suggests the Russian submarines were picking up stray sounds from some military technology, like another country’s submarines that were secretly patrolling the area. Perhaps the foreign submarines did not register on sonar because they were using a kind of technology specifically designed to make them undetectable by sonar. The strange froglike sounds may have been emitted by the foreign submarines unintentionally.
The passage states an odd voice was heard in North arctic and arctic ocean for two decades by Russian submarine's crew. They called the voice quackers. The article proposes three possible theories for the source of the quackers but the lecturer refutes all the explanations.
First, the passage states that the quacker’s source is related to the ocra whales which attracting mates. The professor rejects this theory by saying that ocra whales live in superficial depth of ocean but the submarines are located in the profound parts of ocean so the voice of whales is not detectable by the submarines.
Second, the article explains that giant squid is the other specie which could emit the quackers. The lecturer does not substantiate this reason. She says that the sound was detected by the crews for two decades between 1960 to 1980 but giant squid lives in the ocean until now so it is not reasonable that it emits the voice in two decades and stops emission suddenly.
Third, the passage states that it could be emitted by a military equipment related to other countries. The professor repudiates the theory by saying that the quackers changes direction very fast but this maneuvering ability in not possible for even state-of-art submarines and in addition the engine voice of submarines could not be heard too and it is not possible even for very modern marine euipments.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-09-13 | Shayooooon | 80 | view |
- TPO 47- It is important to know about events happening around the world, even if it is unlikely that they will affect your daily life. 76
- professors in the television 85
- TPO 52 3
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Telephone has greater influence on people s lives than television has 42
- TPO48 Integrated Writing 80
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, second, so, third, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => 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: 1161.0 1373.03311258 85% => OK
No of words: 232.0 270.72406181 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.00431034483 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.90276135726 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57309535554 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 113.0 145.348785872 78% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.487068965517 0.540411800872 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 351.9 419.366225166 84% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => 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: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 80.1549125132 49.2860985944 163% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.1 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2 21.698381199 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.2 7.06452816374 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
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 : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.217043822131 0.272083759551 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0822386301576 0.0996497079465 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0465345189841 0.0662205650399 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133375185416 0.162205337803 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0206918814512 0.0443174109184 47% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => 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: 12.02 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 52.0 63.6247240618 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.