TPO 32 Writing Integrated
Starting in the 1960s and continuing until the 1980s, sailors in Russian submarines patrolling the North Atlantic and the Arctic Ocean would occasionally hear strange sounds. These underwater noises reminded the submarine crews of frog croaks, so they called the sounds “quackers” (from the Russian word for frog sounds). The sources of the sound seemed to be moving with great speed and agility; however, the submarines’ sonar (a method of detecting objects underwater) was unable to detect any solid moving objects in the area. There are several theories about what might have caused the odd sounds.
The reading discusses several theories about what could be the source of “quackers”, the strange underwater sounds heard by submarine crews patrolling in North Atlantic and the Arctic Ocean. However, the lecturer finds the ideas dubious and casts doubt on each theory proposed by the reading passage.
First, the author argues that orca whales might have produced such sounds in order to attract a mate. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that although at the time, these species of whales had a considerable population in the region, they could not have been the major source of the sound. According to the observations, these marine animals were living near the surface of the ocean. But, the submarines were deep in the ocean. Therefore, the sounds produced by orcas were not possible to be heard from the submarines.
Furthermore, the reading holds the view that squids, massive marine invertebrates, might have produced such sounds while approaching the submarines. On the contrary, the professor underlines the fact that the Russian sailors started hearing the sounds in the 1960s. But, they stopped hearing the sounds in the 1980s. On the other hand, the squids still have been living there. This issue indicates that they were not the real source of the odd sounds.
Finally, the reading passage asserts that the strange sounds may have been emitted by foreign submarines patrolling secretly. In contrast, the speaker dismisses the issue due to the fact that the source would move around and change its direction quickly. But, submarines were not able to change direction very fast. Moreover, quackers involved no engine noise. Since even modern submarines don't have engines without noise and can't move that fast, the idea that the foreign submarines were the source of froglike sounds is proven to be false.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-06-08 | parinaz.rnj | 75 | view |
- TPO 44 writing IntegratedIn 1957 a European silver coin dating to the eleventh century was discovered at a Native American archaeological site in the state of Maine in the United States. Many people believed the coin had been originally brought to North A 80
- TPO 41 Writing IntegratedBurning coal in power plants produces a waste product called coal ash, a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals. Environmentalists in the United States are concerned about the damage such harmful che 80
- TPO 48 Writing IntegratedIn recent years, many frog species around the world have declined in numbers or even gone extinct due to changes in their environment. These population declines and extinctions have serious consequences for the ecosystems in which 88
- TPO 32 Writing IntegratedStarting in the 1960s and continuing until the 1980s, sailors in Russian submarines patrolling the North Atlantic and the Arctic Ocean would occasionally hear strange sounds. These underwater noises reminded the submarine crews of 75
- TPO 36 Integrated WritingHail—pieces of ice that form and fall from clouds instead of snow or rain—has always been a problem for farmers in some areas of the United States. Hail pellets can fall with great force and destroy crops in the field. Over th 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 8, column 391, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ine noise. Since even modern submarines dont have engines without noise and cant mov...
^^^^
Line 8, column 427, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...nes dont have engines without noise and cant move that fast, the idea that the forei...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, finally, first, furthermore, however, may, moreover, so, still, therefore, while, in contrast, on the contrary, 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: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => 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: 1552.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 297.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22558922559 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61325449804 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.52861952862 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 459.9 419.366225166 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.504884244 49.2860985944 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.2941176471 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4705882353 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.58823529412 7.06452816374 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.27373068433 211% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.478096842041 0.272083759551 176% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.145101114324 0.0996497079465 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0786280596424 0.0662205650399 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.274219181835 0.162205337803 169% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0573970346357 0.0443174109184 130% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.83 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.