tpo 32
In the lecture, the professor discusses and refutes all the apparent reasons adduced by the author on the plausible sources of what is called "quackers", i.e. frog croak-like sounds heard by Russian submarines in the range 1960s to 1980s. The lecturer proffers several demonstrable facts that are in direct contradiction with those argued by the reading passage. These are recapitulated in what follows.
First, the professor finds the “orca whales’ theory” as a possible source for those uncanny sounds specious. Although she accedes that there is a considerable population of that species in an area in the vicinity of the hearing-spot location, she brings forward two other facts gainsaying that supposition. First, this genus of whales normally lives in the propinquity of the surface, not in the patrolling range of submarines, i.e. far beneath the ocean surface. Second, if the sound really belonged to whales, those should be detected by submarines' radars.
Second, the "squid hypothesis" is highly unlikely in the professor's opinion because squids have always lived and they are continuing living in the oceans till/until now but the quackers were only heard for two decades. Thus, since this species is still extant, it cannot be the true source for those peculiar sounds.
Third, the espionage speculation which posits that those sounds originated from other countries' U-boats is equivalently unconvincing because the source of those quackers was moving rapidly and changing its direction capriciously. Moreover, submarine engines are usually audible but there is no report available regarding hearing engine sound. Thus, since the required technology to manufacture such quiet engines for submarines was not available at that time and is still unreachable even with the modern advancements achieved in the last 40-50 years, this last theory is similarly unbelievable.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 68, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...othesis' is highly unlikely in the professors opinion because squids have always live...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, moreover, really, regarding, second, similarly, so, still, third, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1629.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 290.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.61724137931 5.08290768461 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12666770723 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07950341133 2.5805825403 119% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.627586206897 0.540411800872 116% => OK
syllable_count: 498.6 419.366225166 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.5205215718 49.2860985944 137% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.75 110.228320801 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1666666667 21.698381199 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.16666666667 7.06452816374 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.279157133876 0.272083759551 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0879173887683 0.0996497079465 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.056887989158 0.0662205650399 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.153147112296 0.162205337803 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0117086271338 0.0443174109184 26% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.1 13.3589403974 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 53.8541721854 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.61 12.2367328918 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.84 8.42419426049 117% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 63.6247240618 145% => 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?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.