Exploiting of Ocean sea (2)
The reading and the lecturer were both about the potential for exploiting the ocean floor for a reason and the future of aquamarine agriculture or not exploiting it.
The author feels that there should be exploitation of the ocean floor for reason and the future of aquamarine agriculture. The lecturer disputes this claim. His position is
that there is no need to devastate the ocean as this will help meet the current meal which is protein.
According to the reading, it states that this is the only way to get minerals that are at the bottom of the seas, hence the ecosystems have to be devastated.
The lecturer challenges this claim. His position is that we can get gold and other minerals without devasting the ocean.
Secondly, the author said this will raise a lot of sand and dust from the bottom that will pollute the water, thus,
the product will get into the sea currents which might circulate all over the globe. The Lecturer disputes this claim.
He said there will be a place for the fish to live in.
Finally, the article state that the same destruction will happen with aquamarine agriculture.
The author further states that, a lot of fish will be restricted to small spaces so that they could be properly fed. The lecturer challenges this claim.
His position is that if we rely on aquamarine, it will affect the ecosystem. He further said that there will be enough space, therefore, it will not affect
the fish's meal.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 123, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...d the future of aquamarine agriculture. The lecturer disputes this claim. His posit...
^^^
Line 14, column 111, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...stem. He further said that there will be enough space, therefore, it will not aff...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, hence, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 5.04856512141 297% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1206.0 1373.03311258 88% => OK
No of words: 252.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.78571428571 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98428260373 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.46830500636 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 123.0 145.348785872 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.488095238095 0.540411800872 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 365.4 419.366225166 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.0182538139 49.2860985944 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 80.4 110.228320801 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.8 21.698381199 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.8 7.06452816374 54% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 11.0 4.09492273731 269% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.152209127763 0.272083759551 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0470345733009 0.0996497079465 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0797368016482 0.0662205650399 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0619243771837 0.162205337803 38% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0809825085417 0.0443174109184 183% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.5 13.3589403974 71% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 72.16 53.8541721854 134% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 11.0289183223 65% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.21 12.2367328918 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.94 8.42419426049 82% => OK
difficult_words: 40.0 63.6247240618 63% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 7.0 11.2008830022 62% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 68.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.5 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.