The reading and the lecture are both the probability of some reasons influenced the extinction of a huge animal, called sea cow. The author of the reading, based on some evidence, illustrates some reasons in order to justify the extinction of them while the lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article as the following statements.
First of all, the author points out that overhunting could be considered as the influential factor to decrease the number of sea cows. It is mentioned that the number of their population was so large originally; consequently, after hunting them by Siberian people they were going to extinct. This point is challenged by the lecturer. He thinks the size of them was large enough in regard to preventing hunters to hunt them. Furthermore, the numbers of Siberians’ people were not so large enough to convince them to encounter these enormous animals.
Secondly, the author contends that the disturbance of the ecosystem has been regarded as the noticeable factor in relation to becoming extinct them. He says the destructive circumstance in that time caused to decline the number of Kelps used by sea cows as fundamental resources of food. The man on the lecture refutes this argument. He mentioned that if the ecosystem had impacted on the Kelps' life, it would have affected the other parts of nature such as submarines animals including wales whereas no evidence has been proved in order to acknowledge decreasing the number of wales.
Eventually, fur traders have been noticed by the author as the final factor to become extinct these animals. He states that the mentioned European traders were going to their place and catch them. The lecturer, on the other hands, posits the numbers of sea cows were going to decline before migrating these Europeans to that place. Thus they could not affect the rate of decreasing them.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 207, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'declining'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'cause' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: declining
...uctive circumstance in that time caused to decline the number of Kelps used by sea cows as...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 333, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...igrating these Europeans to that place. Thus they could not affect the rate of decre...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, furthermore, if, second, secondly, so, thus, whereas, while, 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 : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 47.0 30.3222958057 155% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1571.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 312.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03525641026 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20279927342 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72157285892 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.519230769231 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 491.4 419.366225166 117% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.6151058616 49.2860985944 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.733333333 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.06666666667 7.06452816374 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
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: 0.337770177064 0.272083759551 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.105332682372 0.0996497079465 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0742021925909 0.0662205650399 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.197888669888 0.162205337803 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0345270303578 0.0443174109184 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 63.6247240618 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.0 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.