The reading passage and the lecture are both about the difficulties which birds face when they are flying because of the glass windows throughout the cities in modern architecture. More specifically, the writer discusses the effective approaches which they could protect the birds from collision to the windows. The lecturer in the listening passage disagrees and provides some evidence to refute all mentioned the glass modifications in the article.
First of all, the author begins by stating that there are some glasses called one-way glass that work as an impediment against the birds; therefore, they will avoid flying through them. The lecturer, however, disagrees. He declares that these glasses operate as like as a mirror, and birds could not recognize it so that they would fly into the windows.
Furthermore, the author claims that colorful windows can play a proper role in order to prevent the birds from the collision. These kinds of windows also possess some unpainted parts to provide an outside view for people inside the buildings. Again, the lecturer believes there are some flaws in the writer's argument. The speaker holds that the open fragments work as a hole which birds will directly fly into it. By considering this fact, the holes must be extremely tiny to restrict the birds. But, in this case, this modification will exceedingly give rise to the darkness inside the buildings.
Lastly, the article mentioned that exerting a magnetic field for distracting birds from buildings is the third solution as long as birds inherently are able to recognize Earth's magnetic fields. In turn, the professor in the listening passage is doubtful that this is accurate. He states that the birds employ their mentioned ability only for the long distances travels purposes, like their winter migration. However, in such short trips, they use their eyesight sense to determine their routes. Therefore, the creation of the magnetic field for the building is not working effectively.
Essay topics
Votes
Essay reference notes: This topic is refereed from another essay topic, developed by user: Bobby-Shi02
Essay Categories
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 300, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...er believes there are some flaws in the writers argument. The speaker holds that the op...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, so, therefore, third, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1674.0 1373.03311258 122% => OK
No of words: 321.0 270.72406181 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21495327103 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23278547379 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60877712965 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.554517133956 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 506.7 419.366225166 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.5210789841 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.4705882353 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8823529412 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.05882352941 7.06452816374 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.402049928587 0.272083759551 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.105805754892 0.0996497079465 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0799120969284 0.0662205650399 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.226844322073 0.162205337803 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0468427797895 0.0443174109184 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 63.6247240618 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.