According to the reading passage, we know that there are three different theories about how agnostid could have lived. However, the lecture refutes these three ideas one by one with strong arguments.
First, the writer demonstrates a theory that agnostids are free-swimming predators who hunt smaller animals. Nevertheless, the speaker points out that predators who live underwater have large and well-developed eyes, while agnostids eyes are tiny and poor. she goes on to say that agnostids are unlikely predators for that reason and there are no other evidence shows agnostids have other special organs as predators.
Secondly, the passage illustrates that agnostids may dwell on the seafloor. The lecturer disagrees this idea because animals who dwell on seafloor are not able to move fast and can only occupy a small geographic area. On the contrary, agnostids live in multiple areas across long distance, which means they move fast. She noted that the fast speed is uncommon for animals who live in seafloor.
Finally, the author states that there is the likelihood that agnostids were parasites. However, the professor argues that the population of parasites is not large because too many parasites will kill the animal they live in. She says that the number of agnostids is large and vast. So, agnostids could not be parasites live in any individual.
According to the reading passage, we know that there are three different theories about how agnostid could have lived. However, the lecture refutes these three ideas one by one with strong arguments.
First, the writer demonstrates a theory that agnostids are free-swimming predators who hunt smaller animals. Nevertheless, the speaker points out that predators who live underwater have large and well-developed eyes, while agnostids eyes are tiny and poor. she goes on to say that agnostids are unlikely predators for that reason and there are no other evidence shows agnostids have other special organs as predators.
Secondly, the passage illustrates that agnostids may dwell on the seafloor. The lecturer disagrees this idea because animals who dwell on seafloor are not able to move fast and can only occupy a small geographic area. On the contrary, agnostids live in multiple areas across long distance, which means they move fast. She noted that the fast speed is uncommon for animals who live in seafloor.
Finally, the author states that there is the likelihood that agnostids were parasites. However, the professor argues that the population of parasites is not large because too many parasites will kill the animal they live in. She says that the number of agnostids is large and vast. So, agnostids could not be parasites live in any individual.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-12-30 | Junjie Yue | 78 | view |
- With the rapid development of the Internet people have more accesses and resources to the private life of famous entertainers and athletes and many people enjoy the anecdotes of celebrities As far as I am concerned celebrities need more privacy than they 80
- debating if developing various skills can be more helpful for career 70
- Nowadays an increasing number of citizens are discussing the recent launch of the Shenzhou carrier rocket While there are some people who claim that this kind of launch is a waste of time or energy because it could not bring any benefit to citizens I hold 90
- Most times we think the people who are taking in charge can decide the future of our society while young people who have less power have little influence to the world On the contrary I hold the firm belief that young people are having strong influence to 73
- Do you agree or disagree the following sentence When people communicate about a project in person instead of by e mail they will produce better work of the project 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 258, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: She
...while agnostids eyes are tiny and poor. she goes on to say that agnostids are unlik...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, well, while, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 18.0 30.3222958057 59% => More preposition wanted.
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: 1148.0 1373.03311258 84% => OK
No of words: 219.0 270.72406181 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.24200913242 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.84690116678 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63045406511 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 132.0 145.348785872 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.602739726027 0.540411800872 112% => OK
syllable_count: 361.8 419.366225166 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.3908182823 49.2860985944 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.3076923077 110.228320801 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.8461538462 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.53846153846 7.06452816374 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.415911190373 0.272083759551 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.140165510197 0.0996497079465 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.142259952493 0.0662205650399 215% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.274334024038 0.162205337803 169% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.249905960301 0.0443174109184 564% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 52.0 63.6247240618 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.