Integrated essay: Quakers

[Kattie]

The passage and the lecture discuss about the theories on the strange sounds- Quakers observed by Russian submarines while patrolling in Arctic regions. The passage states several theories about those strange sounds. The lecture, however, refutes and states several problems with those theories.

First, The passage mentions that those odd sounds were made by the Ocra whale while their courtships rituals. The lecture states that it is plausible because it was an area where Ocra whales were generally found.In contrast,the lecture posits that Ocra whales were commonly found near the surface area; whereas, the submarine were in the deeper areas of the ocean. If this sound was from nearby Ocra whale, it would have been detected by sonar.Thus, this theory of the passage contradicts with the lecture’s argument.

According to second theory in the passage, the quacker sound was made by a giant squid. Formerly, lecturer agrees that squid lived in those areas. On the other hand, she contends that quacker sound was observed for only two decades that was from 1960 to 1980 and after that it was disappeared. If the sound was made by a giant squid, it would not have been stopped suddenly. Hence, this point made by the lecturer directly casts doubt on the second theory of the passage.

In the last theory, the passage claims that the strange sounds were made by the secretly patrolling submarine of the other country. Conversely, the lecture counterclaims this point and states that the change in the direction of the sound was sudden and there was no loud engine noise as submarines used to make in those days. Additionally, even in today’s advanced technology, it is impossible to make such a silent engine and a quick moving submarine. Therefore, this sound was not made by the other submarine as stated by the passage.

TOEFL listening lectures: A university lecture by a professor of Social History

[Luschen]

Hi, here is a link to the reading and lecture: toefl.100.com/t/xiezuo/2039.html?source=answer I thought your content was very good. You captured all of the relevant points from the lecture and showed a clear contrast. Still, you did have a few sentences that could have been more clear and some usage errors. Overall though, I would rate this one a 4 out of 5.

@Kattie

The passage and the lecture discuss about the theories on[to explain] {it was ok, but this seems more clear} the strange sounds- Quakers {it is “quackers”} observed by Russian submarines while patrolling in Arctic regions. The passage states several theories about those strange sounds. The lecture, however, refutes [the passage] {“refutes” needs an object} and states several problems with those theories.

First, The passage mentions that those odd sounds were [could have been] made by the Ocra whale while[during] their courtships rituals. The lecture states that it is plausible because it was an area where Ocra whales were generally found.In contrast, {“in contrast” doesn’t really work here - I would only use it to show contrast between the passage and the lecture} [However,] the lecture posits that Ocra whales were commonly found near the surface area; whereas, the submarine[s that heard the sounds] were in the deeper areas of the ocean. [Furthermore,] If this sound was from [a ]nearby Ocra whale, it would have been detected by sonar[, but the quacker sounds were not].Thus, this theory of the passage contradicts with the lecture’s argument.

According to [the] second theory in the passage, the quacker sound was made by a giant squid. Formerly, {“formerly” is incorrect here - it would mean this is what he used to think, but then he changed his mind} lecturer agrees that squid lived in those areas. On the other hand, she contends that [the] quacker sound was observed for only two decades[,] that was from 1960 to 1980[,] {yours was ok, but this sounds more natural} and after that it was disappeared. If the sound was made by a giant squid, it would not have been stopped suddenly. Hence, this point made by the lecturer directly casts doubt on the second theory of the passage.

In the last theory, the passage claims that the strange sounds were made by the{“a” is better here, unless you know there was only one} secretly patrolling submarine of the other country. Conversely, the lecture counterclaims [that] this point [is false] {“claims” “counterclaims” don’t use objects, unless you are talking about “claiming land” or something similar} and states that the change in the direction of the sound was sudden and there was no loud engine noise as submarines used to make in those days. Additionally, even in[with] today’s advanced technology, it is impossible to make such a silent engine and a quick moving submarine. Therefore, this sound was not made by the [an]other submarine as stated by the passage.

TOEFL listening lectures: A university lecture by a professor of Social History

[Luschen]

Hi, here is a link to the reading and lecture: toefl.100.com/t/xiezuo/2039.html?source=answer I thought your content was very good. You captured all of the relevant points from the lecture and showed a clear contrast. Still, you did have a few sentences that could have been more clear and some usage errors. Overall though, I would rate this one a 4 out of 5.

@Kattie

The passage and the lecture discuss about the theories on[to explain] {it was ok, but this seems more clear} the strange sounds- Quakers {it is “quackers”} observed by Russian submarines while patrolling in Arctic regions. The passage states several theories about those strange sounds. The lecture, however, refutes [the passage] {“refutes” needs an object} and states several problems with those theories.

First, The passage mentions that those odd sounds were [could have been] made by the Ocra whale while[during] their courtships rituals. The lecture states that it is plausible because it was an area where Ocra whales were generally found.In contrast, {“in contrast” doesn’t really work here - I would only use it to show contrast between the passage and the lecture} [However,] the lecture posits that Ocra whales were commonly found near the surface area; whereas, the submarine[s that heard the sounds] were in the deeper areas of the ocean. [Furthermore,] If this sound was from [a ]nearby Ocra whale, it would have been detected by sonar[, but the quacker sounds were not].Thus, this theory of the passage contradicts with the lecture’s argument.

According to [the] second theory in the passage, the quacker sound was made by a giant squid. Formerly, {“formerly” is incorrect here - it would mean this is what he used to think, but then he changed his mind} lecturer agrees that squid lived in those areas. On the other hand, she contends that [the] quacker sound was observed for only two decades[,] that was from 1960 to 1980[,] {yours was ok, but this sounds more natural} and after that it was disappeared. If the sound was made by a giant squid, it would not have been stopped suddenly. Hence, this point made by the lecturer directly casts doubt on the second theory of the passage.

In the last theory, the passage claims that the strange sounds were made by the{“a” is better here, unless you know there was only one} secretly patrolling submarine of the other country. Conversely, the lecture counterclaims [that] this point [is false] {“claims” “counterclaims” don’t use objects, unless you are talking about “claiming land” or something similar} and states that the change in the direction of the sound was sudden and there was no loud engine noise as submarines used to make in those days. Additionally, even in[with] today’s advanced technology, it is impossible to make such a silent engine and a quick moving submarine. Therefore, this sound was not made by the [an]other submarine as stated by the passage.

TOEFL listening lectures: A university lecture by a professor of Social History