A fossil skeleton of a dinosaur called Sinosauropteryx, preserved in volcanic ash, was discovered in Liaoning, China, in 1996. Interestingly, the fossil included a pattern of fine lines surrounding the skeletal bones. Some paleontologists interpret the lines as evidence that Sinosauropteryx had feathers. However, critics have opposed the idea that Sinosauropteryx was a feathered dinosaur, citing several reasons.
First, the critics point out that the fine lines may not even represent functional structures of a living dinosaur, but rather structures that were formed after the animal’s death. After the animal died and was buried in volcanic ash, its skin may have decomposed into fibers. The skin fibers then became preserved as lines in the fossil; the lines were misinterpreted as evidence of feathers.
Second, even if the fine lines are remains of real structures of a Sinosauropteryx, scientists cannot tell with certainty what part of the dinosaur’s anatomy the structures were. Many dinosaurs had frills, ornamental fan-shaped structures growing out of some parts of their bodies. Some of the critics argue that the lines surrounding the skeleton are much more likely to be fossilized remains of frills than remains of feathers.
A third objection is based on the fact that the usual functions of feathers are to help animals fly or regulate their internal temperature. However, the structures represented by the lines in the Sinosauropteryx fossil were mostly located along the backbone and the tail of the animal. This would have made the structures quite useless for flight and of very limited use in thermoregulation. This suggests that the lines do not represent feathers.
The article and lecture are both about the credibilty of the fine line, present in the fossil of the Sinosauropteryx, as its feather. Whereas reading puposes that the evidence supports an idea that the line is not the feather, the lecturer remains adamant that the line represents the feather. The lecturer casts doubt on the main points made in the passage by providing three compellingf reasons.
First, the functional structure of the dinosaur can be preserved by siting the evidence that a structure of the fossilized animal near it also preserved. On the other hand, the skin of all animal were well decomposed, the remaining fine line must indicate structure organ- feather. By stating this, the lecturer proves that the reasons that author holds is not plausible.
Second, even the chemical component found in the feather substantiate that the line is feather. A feather has beta carotin and the similar component resemble same protein in the line. Thus, providing this evidence it weakens the author's claim.
Third, the feathure indeed use for flight and thermoregulation but, to predict whether something is feather or not based on only this information is futile. The feather can also act as display function. In the peacock, the feather found attached to backbone attract the male due to its colorful display. Similarly, the fine line found to have orange and white color and relates its function as display purpose.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 19, column 7, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...eakens the authors claim. Third, the feathure indeed use for flight and ...
^^
Line 19, column 28, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...aim. Third, the feathure indeed use for flight and thermoregulation but,...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, second, similarly, so, third, thus, well, whereas, 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: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1218.0 1373.03311258 89% => OK
No of words: 234.0 270.72406181 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20512820513 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91114542567 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68512472821 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 145.348785872 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.576923076923 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 373.5 419.366225166 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.5724520084 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.6923076923 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.61538461538 7.06452816374 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.0980719602551 0.272083759551 36% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.036942066764 0.0996497079465 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0469944593693 0.0662205650399 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0628672380706 0.162205337803 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.034375732935 0.0443174109184 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.64 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => 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.