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.
Based on the given materials, the article as well as the lecture discusses an extinct group of marine animals called Agnostids and how they might have behaved and eat. The article propose several hypophesizes of their diet and behavior. That eing said, the lecturer provides several ideas to repudiate these claims.
Initially, it is alleged in the reading that they might have been free-swimming preditors since albeit they were small cretures but still other smaller organisms were there for them to hunt. However, according to the reading this idea is not possible as agnostides lacked the ability to see properly and some times they were blind. She alludes to the fact that preditors usually have strong eyes to follow their prey but the agnostdies were not capable to do so. Also there is no evidence of any other organism in their fossils to help them in this manner.
Second, the article asserts that they were seafloor dwellers feading on dead organisms or bacterias. Yet again, the lecturer explains that seafloor dwellers usually are not able to swim fast and travel for large distances and as a result their fossils are usually concentrated in their origin while agnostides' fossils are found in multiple areas. So thinking about them as seafloor dwellers is highly unlikely.
The last point of contention between the reading and listening passages is living as a parasite. The author says that agnostids might have used other fish as host and feed on them. On the other hand, the speaker point out that parasites do not have large population because too many of them can kill the host but many species of these marine animals were found which indicates their huge population. This contradicts with being a parasite and consequently this idea is faulty.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 181, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'proposes'.
Suggestion: proposes
...might have behaved and eat. The article propose several hypophesizes of their diet and ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 464, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...e agnostdies were not capable to do so. Also there is no evidence of any other organ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, however, second, so, still, well, while, as to, as a result, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1484.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 295.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03050847458 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4499916456 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.559322033898 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 462.6 419.366225166 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => 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: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.8483930812 49.2860985944 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.0 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0714285714 21.698381199 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.21428571429 7.06452816374 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.195154011937 0.272083759551 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0587689710676 0.0996497079465 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0471465076945 0.0662205650399 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115198356568 0.162205337803 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0126325355978 0.0443174109184 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: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.