One of the threats to endangered sea turtle species is the use of nets by commercial shrimp-fishing boats. When turtles get accidentally caught in the nets, they cannot rise to the surface of the ocean to breathe, and they die. Some people suggest that this problem can be solved through an invention called a turtle excluder device (TED) that is incorporated into the nets. A TED provides a passage through which the turtles can escape. However, TEDs have been criticized for several reasons.
First, some shrimpers (shrimp fishers) argue that turtles get trapped only rarely: it is estimated that on average, one shrimp boat accidentally catches about one turtle every month. On the other hand, using TEDs costs the shrimpers some of their catch. Every time the shrimpers cast the nets, a certain percentage of shrimp manage to escape through the turtle passages. The shrimpers complain that the cost of losing shrimp on a daily basis is too high in comparison with the small chance of saving one turtle.
Second, there are alternative methods of protecting sea turtles that may be more effective than TEDs. One method that can be used is shortening the time limit that shrimp boats are allowed to keep their nets underwater. When the time limit is reached, the nets have to be pulled up to the surface, allowing any turtles caught in the net to get air and also giving shrimpers the opportunity to release the turtles from the nets.
Third, TEDs are not effective for larger species of endangered sea turtles. Some species like loggerhead and leatherback turtles can grow to be quite large and cannot fit through the escape passage that standard TEDs provide. Such turtles cannot escape from the nets even if the nets are equipped with TEDs.
The reading and lecture are both about whether applying the Turtle Excluder Device (TED) in commercial shrimp-fishing boats or not. Whereas the author of the reading passage mentions that utilizing TED is problematic and cannot guarantee the turtles' surviving, the lecturer repudiates the statement. The lecturer casts doubts on the three major reasons in the reading passage by providing alternative three cogent reasons.
Firstly, even though the author mentions that turtles’ trapping is occurred rarely and, in comparison with the imposing costs, it is an economical way to ignore this event, the lecturer refutes this idea. She holds that although a few turtles are trapped in TED, in long-term it is not a negligible problem. Indeed, in a long time, this event will put the turtles' population in a brink of endanger and jeopardy.
Secondly, the reading passage claims that executing a time limitation for shrimp boats, which are allowed to keep their nets underwater, can tackle the problem; however, the lecturer posits that this claim is problematic and impossible because the government has not comprehensive control over the process and its time. Thus, this solution seems not reasonable and feasible.
Last but not least, in the reading passage, the author mentions that some species like loggerhead and leatherback turtles due to their big size, can be trapped by TED, regardless to its size, thus it seems inevitable to save them. On the other hand, the lecturer alleges that by making a large-sized TED, the problem can be addressed effectively.
In conclusion, although the reading and lecture are both about whether TED is effective or not, three main reasons in the reading passage are thoroughly challenged by the lecturer.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 362, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'turtles'' or 'turtle's'?
Suggestion: turtles'; turtle's
...in a long time, this event will put the turtles population in a brink of endanger and j...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, second, secondly, so, thus, whereas, in conclusion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1472.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 279.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27598566308 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08696624509 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78301968117 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.562724014337 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 446.4 419.366225166 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => 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: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.8572071257 49.2860985944 144% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.818181818 110.228320801 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.3636363636 21.698381199 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 7.06452816374 127% => 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 : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.102711404999 0.272083759551 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0438857798477 0.0996497079465 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0400133504951 0.0662205650399 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0534919121504 0.162205337803 33% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.033515813977 0.0443174109184 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 13.3589403974 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 53.8541721854 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.64 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.23 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.