agnostids, marine animal, Free-Swimming Predators, Seafloor Dwellers, Parasites
In this set of material, both the author and the professor talk about a group of marine animal called agnostids. They discuss about theories that how they may have lived. While the author asserts that these theories appropriately illustrate it, the professor believes there is a serious weakness in these theories. In what follows, the opinion of both the author and the professor are discussed.
Firstly, the author and the professor talk about Free-Swimming Predators. The author declares that agnostids was hunting smaller animals because they might have been Free-Swimming Predators. By, the professor disagrees with this statement. She says they should have large eye to be predator. But, by looking to the fossils, it can be obvious that they have had tiny eye, and therefore, they were approximately blind.
Secondly, the author and the professor talk about Seafloor Dwellers. The reading of the passage asserts that they might have be habitat on the seafloor, and this cause they survived by eating dead organism. In contrast, the lecturer believes that if they lived on the seafloor, they should move fast. But, the evidence shows they did not have ability to move fast. Thus, they might occupy a small area on the seafloor, and it was rarely to them to survive by grazing on bacteria.
Finally, the author and the lecturer explain Parasites. The author of the reading declares that agnostids may have been a Parasites which they were feeding larger organisms. On the other hand, the professor says their population was in certain limit. So, the theory rules out to be Parasites.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 125, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...he passage asserts that they might have be habitat on the seafloor, and this cause...
^^
Line 4, column 120, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a parasite' or simply 'Parasites'?
Suggestion: a parasite; Parasites
...g declares that agnostids may have been a Parasites which they were feeding larger organism...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, well, while, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => 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: 1330.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 262.0 270.72406181 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07633587786 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02323427807 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58537571531 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 132.0 145.348785872 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.503816793893 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 400.5 419.366225166 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.8815322525 49.2860985944 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 73.8888888889 110.228320801 67% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.5555555556 21.698381199 67% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.05555555556 7.06452816374 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.27373068433 257% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.131161179349 0.272083759551 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0447566849987 0.0996497079465 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0643796280742 0.0662205650399 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0717232438283 0.162205337803 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0376125459548 0.0443174109184 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.8 13.3589403974 73% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.73 53.8541721854 122% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 11.0289183223 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.59 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.19 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 68.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.5 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.