Undoubtedly, declining sea mammals have always been a controversial thing among scientists. More specifically the writer puts forth the idea that declining sea otters are caused by environmental pollution. However, the professor points out that there are some serious flaws in the writer's claim. To be exact, the professor believes that predation is more likely to be the reason for sea otter decline. He more or less addresses the problem with each point made in the reading.
First of all, the writer claims that there were known sources of pollution along the Alaskan coast, such as oil rigs and other sources of industrial chemical pollution. But the professor refutes with this point and says that if otters were killed by chemicals, there should be dead bodies of them in those areas. Since no dead otter was found in the sea, chemical pollution can not be the reason for declining otters.
Secondly, the reading states that other sea mammals such as seals and sea lions along the Alaskan coast were also declining, and since orcas prefer to hunt much larger prey, it should be environmental pollution that affects the entire ecosystem. The professor, not surprisingly though, believes that due to human hunting, there are not enough whales for orcas to eat. So orcas have to hunt smaller mammals like sea otters.
Finally, the author wraps up the topic by claiming that the pollution hypothesis could also explain the uneven pattern of otter decline. Then again, the professor stays on the other side of the argument and says that since orcas cant reaches shallow and rocky areas, sea otter decline has an uneven pattern.
In conclusion, the other and the professor obviously hold opposing views about otter decline.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 230, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
... the argument and says that since orcas cant reaches shallow and rocky areas, sea ot...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, as to, in conclusion, such as, first of all, more or less
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1450.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 286.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06993006993 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11236361783 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.46793709043 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 145.348785872 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.559440559441 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 435.6 419.366225166 104% => 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: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.827734674 49.2860985944 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.571428571 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4285714286 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.92857142857 7.06452816374 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => 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: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.