The reading passage and the lecture both discuss The theory of the way agnostids lived based on the discovered fossils remains. The reading claims that those marine animals were sea floor dwellers and parasites. However, the lecturer refutes the author's assessment. shee demonstrate three reasons to cast doubt on the claims made in the reading
.
The first allegation of the script against which the orator argues that it is possible that agnositdes were predators.The lecturer refutes this point by stating that predators should have large eyes. However, the fossil remains of such arthropods does not show that they did. In fact, it shows that they barely could see. Thus, it is unlikely that they were predators. Moreover, there is not clue that they had other sensory organ to detect their pray. Thus, there is no proof that they were predators
secondly, according to the text it is possible that agnosides were seafloor dwellers.. The speaker also find this idea debatable. She bolsters her opinion by stating that seafloor dwellers are slow movers, and do not cross large distances. However, the remains of agnosides show that were spread over large distance, thus, this exclude the possibility that they were dwellers.
Lastly, the lecturer contradicts the fallacy of the passage that agnosides were parasites. The professor again disagree with the author. He contends that parasites should be small in numbers. However, the fossil remains of agnosides indicate that they were large in number. Being that large means that they cannot be parasites because other wise they will eat the organism they live on.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 247, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ites. However, the lecturer refutes the authors assessment. shee demonstrate three reas...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 267, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Shee
...ecturer refutes the authors assessment. shee demonstrate three reasons to cast doubt...
^^^^
Line 1, column 346, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...doubt on the claims made in the reading . The first allegation of the script aga...
^^
Line 3, column 87, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ch the orator argues that it is possible that agnositdes were predators.The lectu...
^^
Line 3, column 119, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
...ossible that agnositdes were predators.The lecturer refutes this point by stating ...
^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Secondly
...is no proof that they were predators secondly, according to the text it is possible t...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 85, Rule ID: DOUBLE_PUNCTUATION
Message: Two consecutive dots
Suggestion: .
...le that agnosides were seafloor dwellers.. The speaker also find this idea debatab...
^^
Line 7, column 154, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...sagree with the author. He contends that parasites should be small in numbers. Ho...
^^
Line 7, column 259, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: large
...ns of agnosides indicate that they were large in number. Being that large means that they canno...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 337, Rule ID: OTHER_WISE_OTHERWISE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'otherwise'?
Suggestion: otherwise
...s that they cannot be parasites because other wise they will eat the organism they live on...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 389, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hey will eat the organism they live on.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, lastly, moreover, second, secondly, so, thus, well, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 19.0 12.0772626932 157% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 22.412803532 178% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => 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: 1363.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 261.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22222222222 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0193898071 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.41226507337 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.555555555556 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 408.6 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => 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: 40.8812266372 49.2860985944 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 75.7222222222 110.228320801 69% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.5 21.698381199 67% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.5 7.06452816374 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 11.0 4.19205298013 262% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.146309229199 0.272083759551 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0472130624326 0.0996497079465 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0469495099374 0.0662205650399 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0913551531225 0.162205337803 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0257570099869 0.0443174109184 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.4 13.3589403974 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.27 53.8541721854 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.8 11.0289183223 80% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.4 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.