TPO-45
The reading and the lecture both talk about bees which were exist on earth 200 million years ago or not. The reading suggests that the fossil which refer to bees could not be possible and give three reasons for it; however, the professor states that these reasons are unconvincing.
At first, they discuss no fossil of actual bees. The author claims that no fossil remains of actual bees were for 200 million years ago. The speaker, on the other hand, says that the fossils of the bees were in trees, thus it could possible to found it.
Secondly, the reading and the lecture talk about absence of flowering plants. The writer argues that flowering plants first appeared 125 million years ago, consequently the bees could not exist. In contrast, the professor announces that bees feeding from non-flowering plants 200 years ago, and when the flowers come they adopted to flowers.
Finally, the reading suggests that the structure of the fossil is different from modern bees, therefor it could not refer it to bees. Nevertheless, the lecturer asserts that the scientists find the bees which refer to the fossil had water proofing cover like the modern bees, thus they could be bees by little different.
All in all, the reading claims that the fossil did not have relate to bees. However, the professor says that the reasons mentioned on the passage are not persuasive.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 61, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'existed'.
Suggestion: existed
...lecture both talk about bees which were exist on earth 200 million years ago or not. ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 61, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'related'.
Suggestion: related
...ing claims that the fossil did not have relate to bees. However, the professor says th...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, thus, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1143.0 1373.03311258 83% => OK
No of words: 233.0 270.72406181 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.90557939914 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.90696013833 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.30163795031 2.5805825403 89% => OK
Unique words: 113.0 145.348785872 78% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.484978540773 0.540411800872 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 321.3 419.366225166 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => 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: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.8980471535 49.2860985944 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.25 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4166666667 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.58333333333 7.06452816374 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0708350367693 0.272083759551 26% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0315427251001 0.0996497079465 32% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0182839435335 0.0662205650399 28% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0453334026896 0.162205337803 28% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0124763620309 0.0443174109184 28% => 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: 11.4 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 69.11 53.8541721854 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 11.0289183223 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.2 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.76 8.42419426049 92% => OK
difficult_words: 47.0 63.6247240618 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.