The lecturer disputes the solutions presented by the author to solve the problem of bird injuries caused by glass building's collision. He asserts that these solution may not efficiently prevent birds from hitting the glass material. Thus, he refutes the author's claims.
First the lecturer argues that replacing translucent glass with mirror glass will cause birds to see a reflection of trees and be mislead. The author claims that replacing the glass windows with mirrors would help birds to identify that a solid object is in front of them. On the other hand, the lecturer says that birds cannot identify that they are seeing a mirror in front of them. He confirm that bird would see tree reflections and be deceived thinking that they are real trees. Thus, ignorantly, collide with it.
Moreover, the lecturer contends that birds also cannot distinguish between free air and the holes between glass paintings. The author claims that painting colorful designs on glass buildings will help birds to identify that there is a solid object in front of them and try to avoid it. However, the lecturer states that birds will still fly through the painting holes because it not distinguishable. Furthermore, if designers make smaller holes to prevent birds from colliding with it, the rooms inside the building would be dark, and people cannot see from the inside.
Finally, the lecturer states that creating an artificial magnetic field won't redirect birds away from the building. The lecturer acknowledges that magnetic field will help some bird from changing their direction.However, it is not a tremendously effective technique. According to the lecturer, only birds travelling long distances would move away from the building. The rest of the birds which are travelling short distances cannot be redirected because they use only their sight and day brightness. Therefore, if they are faced with solid objects, the magnetic effect would have minimal effect on them.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 115, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'buildings'' or 'building's'?
Suggestion: buildings'; building's
...roblem of bird injuries caused by glass buildings collision. He asserts that these soluti...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 152, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this solution' or 'these solutions'?
Suggestion: this solution; these solutions
...ss buildings collision. He asserts that these solution may not efficiently prevent birds from ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 171, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...islead. The author claims that replacing the glass windows with mirrors would hel...
^^
Line 2, column 389, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'He' must be used with a third-person verb: 'confirms'.
Suggestion: confirms
...re seeing a mirror in front of them. He confirm that bird would see tree reflections an...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 340, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ecturer states that birds will still fly through the painting holes because it no...
^^
Line 5, column 213, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: However
...some bird from changing their direction.However, it is not a tremendously effective tec...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 299, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...chnique. According to the lecturer, only birds travelling long distances would mo...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, so, still, therefore, thus, 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: 14.0 5.04856512141 277% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => 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: 1656.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 317.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22397476341 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21953715646 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62435921556 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.488958990536 0.540411800872 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 472.5 419.366225166 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.8131444428 49.2860985944 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.4117647059 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6470588235 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.35294117647 7.06452816374 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.209133489343 0.272083759551 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0773987455153 0.0996497079465 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0570005856592 0.0662205650399 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147122094536 0.162205337803 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0640831743934 0.0443174109184 145% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.