TPO 52
The reading passage explores the issue that sending people to an asteroid would actually be the best colonization option, the professor deals with the same issue. However, he principally maintains that the arguments used in the article have serious downsides and it is not practical to send people to an asteroid, which directly contradicts what the reading states. In order to substantiate his contention, the professor reveals 3 pieces of evidence to back up his idea.
To begin with, even though the passage suggests that with low gravity, it is easier for the spacecraft to carry much more equipment and less fuel for the trip back to Earth, the professor argues that the low gravity presents certain risks. What he uses to cast doubt on the reading is that people will lose the muscle and bone density when they stay in the space for a few months. That is to say, they may suffer from some disease under the low gravity. Obviously, the argument disapproves its counterpart in the article.
Moreover, the reading contends that the colonists or businesses sponsoring them could more than pay for the cost of their support by mining minerals and sending them back to Earth; on the contrary, the lecturer challenges that it is not the whole picture what it will be. There are some additional facts to be considered, like the cost to transport the metals. It will certainly reduce the profits and no one can guarantee that the valuable metals sold are able to reamain the same price with the increasing supply of the raw metals from the asteroids. Thus, the lecturer can not give a nod to the author in terms of the second point.
Finally, the author raises the issue that asteroids are a good option for colonization because some of them would be very easy to reach, whereas the presenter disagrees with it. The presenter claims that even though it is easy to reach, it does not mean that it is easy to return. The evidence he adopts to refute the passage is that the orbit is also moving away. When the asteroids get closer to Earth, they do not stay at the same point. As time goes by, the asteroids will travel away from Earth. It is a challenge for the colonists to return to Earth because of the long distance. Again, the presenter demonstrates that the third point does not hold.
In conclusion, based on the thorough analysis of whole situation in the reading passage, the professor has impressively revealed the fundamental argument that sending people to an asteroid would actually be the best colonization option is unconvincing.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ces of evidence to back up his idea. To begin with, even though the passage s...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...oves its counterpart in the article. Moreover, the reading contends that the ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...author in terms of the second point. Finally, the author raises the issue tha...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... that the third point does not hold. In conclusion, based on the thorough ana...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, however, may, moreover, second, so, third, thus, whereas, in conclusion, on the contrary, to begin with, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 22.412803532 170% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 54.0 30.3222958057 178% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2113.0 1373.03311258 154% => OK
No of words: 440.0 270.72406181 163% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.80227272727 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57997565096 4.04702891845 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56146648176 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 145.348785872 151% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 646.2 419.366225166 154% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 14.0 8.23620309051 170% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.9909966339 49.2860985944 138% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.210526316 110.228320801 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1578947368 21.698381199 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.57894736842 7.06452816374 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => 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: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.86 12.2367328918 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.19 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 63.6247240618 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.