The reading and the lecture are both about the source of the particular sound identified in the past. The author of the reading mentioned the arguments that prove some probability such as producing sound by wales and submarines while the lecturer casts doubt the claims made in the article as the following reasons.
First of all, the author points out the sound are produced by coral wales. It is noticed that during the courtship ritual these giant animals make loud sound. This point is challenged by the lecturer. She thinks coral wales have been living near the surface of the ocean and if they produced the sound, the other submarines could recognize them. Furthermore submarines were diving under the ocean so deeply and they could not have heard the voice of the animals existed near the surface.
Secondly, the author contends that this sound could be considered as a voice of giant squid having soft body with no skeleton. Besides that, these intelligent animals could emit loud voice because of their powerful brains. The woman on the lecture refuted this argument. She says these animals have been living until now since that time and in this interval nobody could have been hearing the sound of them.
Eventually, the author states that some foreign submarines could be regarded as a source of the mentioned sound; consequently, they had not enhanced technology in order to prevent other submarines to identify them. The woman, on the other hands, posits the source of sound distributes its waves to any directions whereas the foreign submarines could move only in one direction. In addition, she explains no technology have been invented until now in regard to establishing submarines moving so fast and silent the same as the waves of sound.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 346, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Furthermore,
... other submarines could recognize them. Furthermore submarines were diving under the ocean ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 376, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
... and in this interval nobody could have been hearing the sound of them. Eventually, the aut...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, consequently, first, furthermore, if, second, secondly, so, whereas, while, in addition, such as, first of all, in regard to, 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: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => 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: 1468.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 294.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99319727891 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14082457966 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.452029469 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.517006802721 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 457.2 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.229477954 49.2860985944 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.857142857 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 21.698381199 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.2142857143 7.06452816374 159% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.353097975134 0.272083759551 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.123797501725 0.0996497079465 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0736342606558 0.0662205650399 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.213131515556 0.162205337803 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.073478671551 0.0443174109184 166% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.79 8.42419426049 92% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => 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.