According to the given set of the reading passage, it is the author's conviction about the behavioral action and living of Agnostids, which based on the fossil records were initial arthropods-relatives of modern-era insects that became extinct about 450 years ago. The author highlights several different hypotheses in this regard. On the contrary, the lecture casts doubt on these claims and refutes each of the author's specific points by providing several counter-arguments that are as follows:
First of all, the reading holds the view that it is possible that the Agnostids were free-swimming predators. However, the lecture finds this reason unconvincing and asserts that free-swimming animals are large and have well-behaved eyes in order to prey other animals. On the other hand, the Agnostids were so tiny and their eyes did not develop very well even some of them were blind and as a result, they could not be supposed as an active predator.
Secondly, although the author posits that they inhabit in the seafloor, the lecturer rejects this point too by saying that the seafloor animals do not have the ability to move fast and usually localized on some specific areas. Conversely, a huge number of Agnostids were able to move fast and travel in large distances. Therefore, it is highly unusual to think that they were seafloor animals.
As the last point to emphasize the reading claim, the author says that the Agnostids were parasites, foraging in big organisms. Yet again, the lecture states on the opposite side and contradicts that parasites usually do not have an enormous population and their dwelling restrict in a certain limit. On the other hand, the population of Agnostids was so large due to the vast records, obtained by fossils. Thus, this theory seems to be implausible as well.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 62, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...n set of the reading passage, it is the authors conviction about the behavioral action ...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 287, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'several'.
Suggestion: several
...ut 450 years ago. The author highlights several different hypotheses in this regard. On the contr...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, well, even so, as a result, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1518.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 297.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11111111111 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81875901712 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545454545455 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 469.8 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 73.6889106688 49.2860985944 150% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.5 110.228320801 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.75 21.698381199 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.25 7.06452816374 173% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => 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: 0.36969849528 0.272083759551 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.122125442332 0.0996497079465 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0480203575467 0.0662205650399 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.211165416317 0.162205337803 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0764861160925 0.0443174109184 173% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.92 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.