The article discusses a fascinating topic pertaining to ape’s ability to communicate and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor explain that human being have not done enough study to agree with notion and opposes each of the author’s reasons.
First the reading passages states that apes are well enough successful to communicate at age of young child and gave the example of gorilla who uses signs to show humor, to insult and so on. In contrary, the professor provides information that to identify the language or communication, it must be communicative for both side. He states that each of sides should be able to take turns and make comments on certain things in conversation. Clearly, a disparity exist between the article and the evidence exhibited by the professor. As a result, we can safely assume that apes do not meet the criteria which was given by the professor, to be a language user.
Second, the reading pushes forth the idea that Koko who is lowland gorilla, understands the poem which is written regarding her as well as distinguishes word such as money, funny. Nevertheless, the professor contends that proponents of apes communication who rely on research, never studied on apes. According to the professor, without any proof of criteria which is the qualities of communication, it is hard to conclude that apes can communication like human.
Finally, the article posits that, adult chimpanzee washee was raised as if a deaf child is capable of translating word into American sign-language. The professor refutes this point by explaining that learning if this possibility correct, there is a technique called brain scanning to see both human and apes brain activity during conversation may reveal whether or not the apes can really communicate as human being do.
In summary, while both the reading and the lecture provide interesting information with regard to ability of communication of apes, a significant amount of evidence support that the lecture presented more legitimate factors. Therefore, the article fails to justify the claim made in passage towards the professor’ claim.
- What change would make your hometown more appealing to people your age. 80
- electronic medical record storage 86
- permanent human being on the venus 81
- In 1938 an archaeologist in Iraq acquired a set of clay jars that had been excavated two years earlier by villagers constructing a railroad line. The vessel was about 2,200 years old. Each clay jay contained a copper cylinder surrounding an iron rod. The 3
- Investigations made at laboratories in the various parts of the world indicate that apes are capable of understanding language and using linguistic responses at the level of young children just because these animals do not have the physical apparatus for 52
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 247, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ng if this possibility correct, there is a technique called brain scanning to see...
^^
Line 7, column 356, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...activity during conversation may reveal whether or not the apes can really communicate as huma...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, really, regarding, second, so, therefore, well, while, in summary, such as, as a result, as well as, with regard to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 30.3222958057 152% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1811.0 1373.03311258 132% => OK
No of words: 343.0 270.72406181 127% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27988338192 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30351707066 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01031385028 2.5805825403 117% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 145.348785872 138% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.583090379009 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 576.9 419.366225166 138% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.4275705754 49.2860985944 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.357142857 110.228320801 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.5 21.698381199 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.6428571429 7.06452816374 165% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 4.33554083885 231% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.0955930088018 0.272083759551 35% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.032132330862 0.0996497079465 32% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0284639898408 0.0662205650399 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0489026755317 0.162205337803 30% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.030906780101 0.0443174109184 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 13.3589403974 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 53.8541721854 72% => It means the essay is relatively harder to read.
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.64 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.52 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 63.6247240618 160% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.