The article states that environmental causes declining in the sea otter population and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor states that the cause of sea otter decline is by predators and she refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading claims that oil rigs and other sources of industrial chemical pollution seemed the more likely to destroy sea otter populations. Conversely, the professor refutes this point by saying that this point is weak. Because of we did not find died bodies of sea otter along the beach of Alaska coast which is not expected if the pollutions had caused. This means this disappearing of sea otter bodies is supporting the idea of being killed by a predator.
Second, the article claims that since the entire populations of sea mammals along the Alaskan coast have been affected, it highly support the environmental pollution caused this. The professor, on the other hand, states that population of sea otters have decreased due to overhunting activities, So whales, the predators feed on sea otters, forced to change their diet. And thus, She adds that Orca whales had started hunting all other types of sea mammals, such as seals and sea lions. She concludes that predator theory is highly explained why sea mammals are reduced.
Third, the reading posits that the pollution reason could explains why the even pattern of otter decline at some locations are greater than the others. However, the professor opposes this point by stating that this uneven distribution of declining populations is much better explains by predator reason. She emphasizes that because of orca whales can not access all locations, the decline of the population seemed varied. For example, ocra can not access shallow rocks, sea otters are not decline in this locations.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 229, Rule ID: BECAUSE_OF_I[1]
Message: Probable usage error. Use 'Because we' instead.
Suggestion: Because we
...oint by saying that this point is weak. Because of we did not find died bodies of sea otter a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 131, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'supports'?
Suggestion: supports
...kan coast have been affected, it highly support the environmental pollution caused this...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 341, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hales, the predators feed on sea otters, forced to change their diet. And thus, S...
^^
Line 7, column 59, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'explain'
Suggestion: explain
... posits that the pollution reason could explains why the even pattern of otter decline a...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 502, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...ow rocks, sea otters are not decline in this locations.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, first, however, if, second, so, third, thus, for example, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1520.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 295.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15254237288 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55867316951 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.528813559322 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 459.0 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.2730695845 49.2860985944 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.571428571 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0714285714 21.698381199 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.21428571429 7.06452816374 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
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: 0.457534234912 0.272083759551 168% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.16523886499 0.0996497079465 166% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0770040596304 0.0662205650399 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.280207804622 0.162205337803 173% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0564350993323 0.0443174109184 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.