Agnostids were a group of marine animals that became extinct about 450 million years ago. Agnostid fossils can be found in rocks in many areas around the world. From the fossil remains, we know that agnostids were primitive arthropods—relatives of modern-day insects. However, the fossil information does not allow paleontologists to determine with certainty what agnostids ate or how they behaved. There are several different theories about how agnostids may have lived.
Free-Swimming Predators
First, the agnostids may have been free-swimming predators that hunted smaller animals. It is known that other types of primitive arthropods were strong swimmers and active predators, so it is reasonable that the agnostids may have lived that way as well. And while the agnostids were small, sometimes just six millimeters long, there were plenty of smaller organisms in the ancient ocean for them to prey on.
Seafloor Dwellers
Second, they may have dwelled on the seafloor. Again, there are examples of other types of primitive arthropods living this way, so it is possible that agnostids did too. On the seafloor they would have survived by scavenging dead organisms or by grazing on bacteria.
Parasites
Third, there is the possibility that the agnostids were parasites, living on and feeding off larger organisms. One reason that this seems possible is that there are many species of modern-day arthropods that exist as parasites, such as fleas, ticks, and mites. The agnostids might have lived on primitive fish or even on other, larger arthropods.
Whether should people correct the teachers' or the leaders' mistakes is always a debated question. If this problem is not dealt with well, it might cause some harmful effects. In my opinion, I believe to interrupt and correct the speaker is the best way to solve this issue. And there are several points that I want to mention.
First of all, it is rather important to remind the speakers of their mistake right away, because it can avoid other people listening to the talk to misunderstand the truth. Furthermore, if the wrong idea is not revised directly, other people will remember the wrong concept or information which can cause serious consequences. For example, when I was in university, I once attended a meeting with other students on the basketball team. The leader was announcing some crucial information about an upcoming game we were going to participate in. However, the leader then gave the wrong date of the game which dramatically caused the whole team to miss the game. If someone who already knew the time was wrong and spoke up then that wouldn't happen.
Second, though it is the seemingly proper solution to the problem, we should also keep in mind that the tone of the corrector should not make the speaker get ashamed. That is, the person who speaks up should be aware of how not to make the situation turn weird. Taking an experience of mine as an example, I accidentally noticed my teacher was teaching a topic wrongly. And in order to deal with it, I used a joke that is relative to the lecture and gave my teacher hints to amend his mistake. As a result, the joke not only helped my teacher but also gave all the people in the classroom additional laughter.
In conclusion, to correct the speaker's mistake is a good solution if we use an appropriate attitude to face it. Hence, we can not only solve the problem but also not humiliating the speaker.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 730, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...e time was wrong and spoke up then that wouldnt happen. Second, though it is the see...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, second, so, then, well, for example, in conclusion, as a result, first of all, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 15.1003584229 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 9.8082437276 92% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 13.8261648746 65% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 43.0788530466 70% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 52.1666666667 67% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.0752688172 99% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1552.0 1977.66487455 78% => OK
No of words: 332.0 407.700716846 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.67469879518 4.8611393121 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.2685907696 4.48103885553 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56636404583 2.67179642975 96% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 212.727598566 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.551204819277 0.524837075471 105% => OK
syllable_count: 487.8 618.680645161 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 9.59856630824 94% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.51792114695 199% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.6003584229 83% => 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: 19.0 20.1344086022 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 30.5149574759 48.9658058833 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.2941176471 100.406767564 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5294117647 20.6045352989 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.41176470588 5.45110844103 154% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 11.8709677419 42% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 3.85842293907 259% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.88709677419 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0470372361842 0.236089414692 20% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0151252964955 0.076458572812 20% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0227045410961 0.0737576698707 31% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0281300879478 0.150856017488 19% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0185449582771 0.0645574589148 29% => 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: 10.3 11.7677419355 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 58.1214874552 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 10.1575268817 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.81 10.9000537634 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.67 8.01818996416 96% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 86.8835125448 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.002688172 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.0537634409 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.247311828 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
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.