quackers sound source
The reading passage and the lecture are both about quackers, an odd sound heard by the crews of Russian submarines during the 1960s to 1980s. The author proposes several theories regarding the source of the sound. Although these points seem reasonable, the professor in the lecture casts doubt on them and finds them not convincing for the following reasons.
To begin with, the author suggests that the noise stemmed from ocra whales inhabiting the patrolling areas of the submarine. Ocra whales make the sounds in an attempt to attract their mate. Conversely, disputing this argument, the lecturer claims that these animals dwell on the surface of the ocean and can be detected by the sonar equipped on the submarine. Therefore, the lecturer believes that ocra whales have nothing to do with this sound.
Second, even though the author posits that the sounds were caused by giant squids which are hardly detected by sonars because of their boneless structures, the lecturer argues that it is a misconception. This is because giant squids continue to live in the patrolling areas of submarines today which contradicts the disappearance of the sounds by the 1980s. Accordingly, the lecturer rules out the possibility of giant squids.
Last but not least, the lecturer acutely identifies a weakness in the reading passage that it probably was other countries’ military submarines which were undetectable because of the non-registration that emitted the sounds. She points out that the sounds of these submarines didn’t correspond to quackers since submarines can’t move and change directions rapidly. Furthermore, with the aim of establishing a more concrete explanation, she details that the crews of Russian submarines didn’t recognize the engine noises caused by the submarines as well. As a result, the lecturer has no confidence in the theory mentioned in the article.
To summarize, both the author and the lecturer hold conflicting views about the source of quackers.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, conversely, furthermore, if, regarding, second, so, therefore, well, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 30.3222958057 152% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1673.0 1373.03311258 122% => OK
No of words: 315.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31111111111 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83034344936 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 145.348785872 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.520634920635 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 500.4 419.366225166 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.0544592308 49.2860985944 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.533333333 110.228320801 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 21.698381199 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.53333333333 7.06452816374 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.193790788291 0.272083759551 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0674602535757 0.0996497079465 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0806398360076 0.0662205650399 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100928297953 0.162205337803 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0331923224806 0.0443174109184 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 13.3589403974 106% => OK
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: 13.52 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.