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.
The article states that agnostids were primitive arthropods-relatives of modern-day insects and provides three theories for support. However, the professor explains that the theories presented by the author are weak and refutes each one of them.
First, the reading states that the agnostids may have been free-swimming predators that hunted smaller animals. the professor refutes this point by saying that there are indeed types of arthropods who can swim in the open ocean and act as predators. Adding that they have well-developed eyes but agnostids had poor eyes, they were almost blind. Even if they could pray and swim in the ocean, they would have another organ that would help them, but there are no records for that in the fossils. Therefore, this theory can be ruled out.
Second, the article avers that the agnostids may have dwelled on the seafloor. However, the professor explains that animals on the seafloor cannot move fast, they are slow. Also, they localize and occupy small areas. On the other hand, agnostids fossil were found in larger areas far away and it unusual for seafloor animals.
Third, the reading claims that there is a chance that the agnostids were parasites. The professor argues that typically parasites are not in large population because they have to stay in a certain limit in order not harm host organisms that they are used for feeding. But agnostids fossils were found in large numbers, which would rule out this theory that agnostids were parasites.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 113, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
... predators that hunted smaller animals. the professor refutes this point by saying ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, so, therefore, third, well, 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: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 19.0 30.3222958057 63% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1256.0 1373.03311258 91% => OK
No of words: 246.0 270.72406181 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10569105691 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96035189615 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53207332703 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.556910569106 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 378.9 419.366225166 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.23039136 49.2860985944 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.7142857143 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5714285714 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.35714285714 7.06452816374 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.248264709099 0.272083759551 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0944902739226 0.0996497079465 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0958633860354 0.0662205650399 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.163326091347 0.162205337803 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0413532613458 0.0443174109184 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.06 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => 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.