The lecture apparently disproves the three theories provided by the reading passage which states that bees could not exist on erath 200 million ago. The lecturer contends that the skeptics in the passage are not convincing and she maintains that it is possible that the old fossil structures were made by bees 200 million years ago. According to the lecturer, the skeptics in the passage suffers from several flaws from various aspects, as is presented below.
The flaw of the first skeptic is that the fossil remains of bees could not be preserved for 200 millon years since a kind of sticky liquid used to presearve the fossils of bees is very rare at that time. The lecturer points out that there is no tree 200 years ago which could produce the sticky liquid so that no fossils of bees could remain from 200 years ago.
The problem with the second skeptic is that bees might feed on non-floweing plants 200 years ago as the lecturer says. That is to say, bees could feed on non-flowering plants until the emergence of flowering plants. Then bees adapted to flowering plants and maintain stable to now.
The weakness of the third skeptic is that there is a chemical evidence which supports that the structures were made by bees. According to the lecturer, there is a special waterproof chemical substance remained on the structures, and this kind of chemical substance could only be produced by bees. Therefore, the structures must be made by bees.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ees could remain from 200 years ago. The problem with the second skeptic is that...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, first, second, so, then, therefore, third, kind of, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1210.0 1373.03311258 88% => OK
No of words: 251.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.82071713147 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98032404683 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43321617285 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 117.0 145.348785872 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.466135458167 0.540411800872 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 350.1 419.366225166 83% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.0554821711 49.2860985944 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.0 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8181818182 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.09090909091 7.06452816374 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0723820297197 0.272083759551 27% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0326240481704 0.0996497079465 33% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.021485417299 0.0662205650399 32% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0460408091567 0.162205337803 28% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0221356089159 0.0443174109184 50% => 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: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 66.07 53.8541721854 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.2367328918 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.75 8.42419426049 92% => OK
difficult_words: 48.0 63.6247240618 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.