Both the writer and the speaker discuss a mysterious sound which sailors of Russian submarines patrolling the North Atlantic and the Arctic Ocean could hear between the 1960s and 1980s. The passage brings up three theories about the possible sources of this sound, while the talk casts doubt on them through citing several reasons.
First, according to the passage, it is proposed that some Orcas whales contributed to these sound on account of the fact that the submarines were in their habitat, and also the female whales transmitted this sound to attract males. Unlike the writer, the speaker asserts that it is true that the Russian submarines were in whales' habitat, but the Orcas whales lived near the surface, while the submarines were in deep. Therefore, they could not detect the Orcas whales' sounds.
Second, the author goes on to mention that giant squids which lived deep in the ocean were the possible cause of the sound in view of the fact that their body lacked skeleton. Hence, they could not be detected by sonar system. Nonetheless, the professor supports a contradictory view as compared to that presented in the reading. He points out that although the giant squid's scenario is plausible, the submarines suddenly could not detect the sound in the 1990s, whereas the giant squids have lived in the zone for many years.
Finally, the passage posits that the sound was caused by some other submarines that were not registered to the Russian sonar system on the grounds that the technology those submarines used was so high that the Russian submarines were not able to detect them. On the other hand, the lecturer flatly denies this, stating that the source of the sound moved swiftly. Thus, it could not be made by a submarine because still countries are not capable of making such a fast and silent submarine.
In conclusion, the main topic of the discussion is about an odd sound heard by sailors in Russian submarines during the 1960s and 1980s. The reading suggests several reasons for this sound, whereas the lecture categorically denies them by giving some evidence.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 369, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'squids'' or 'squid's'?
Suggestion: squids'; squid's
.... He points out that although the giant squids scenario is plausible, the submarines s...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, hence, if, nonetheless, second, so, still, therefore, thus, whereas, while, in conclusion, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1754.0 1373.03311258 128% => OK
No of words: 352.0 270.72406181 130% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98295454545 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33147354134 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.3920319585 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494318181818 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 513.0 419.366225166 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => 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: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.6563843803 49.2860985944 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.285714286 110.228320801 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.1428571429 21.698381199 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.5 7.06452816374 149% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.515709676142 0.272083759551 190% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.166367686059 0.0996497079465 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0854586960546 0.0662205650399 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.275866467927 0.162205337803 170% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0613200339986 0.0443174109184 138% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.9 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.