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 reading and the lecture are both about agnostid. The author of the reading states that there are several reasons about how agnostids have lived. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. he is the opinion that none of the theories are convincing and refutes each of the author's claims.
First of all, the article suggests that agnostids are free-swimming predators and capable of prey small animals. the author mentions that agnostic lived the same way as primitive arthropods because they are similar to strong swimming and active predator. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. the lecturer claims that primitive other arthropods have a well large eye and then they could clear visualized to look small animals and prey. Additionally, he says agnostids have tiny eyes and sometimes blind and have no any other sensory system figure out how they actually found heir food. thus this theories actually rule out this theory.
Second of all, agnostids might have dwelled on the seafloor. In the article, it is said that other types of primitive arthropods living seafloor and scavenging dead organisms or grazing on bacteria. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that seafloor dwellers move slowly from one place to another and living in a small area but in contrast, the agnostids are liked to loved in a large area and they are potential to move in a faster way.
finally, the article posits that agnostids would be parasites because they ate lived on and fed of larger organisms. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that parasites family are not big, they consist of a small family group because they kill their host organisms. Furthermore, the lecturer says that agnostids consist of larger family groups and vast individual fossils are found.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 150, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...reasons about how agnostids have lived. The lecturer challenges the claims made by ...
^^^
Line 1, column 205, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: He
...allenges the claims made by the author. he is the opinion that none of the theorie...
^^
Line 5, column 114, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...tors and capable of prey small animals. the author mentions that agnostic lived the...
^^^
Line 5, column 310, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...argument is challenged by the lecturer. the lecturer claims that primitive other ar...
^^^
Line 5, column 529, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
... tiny eyes and sometimes blind and have no any other sensory system figure out how...
^^
Line 5, column 603, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Thus
... out how they actually found heir food. thus this theories actually rule out this th...
^^^^
Line 5, column 603, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: thus,
... out how they actually found heir food. thus this theories actually rule out this th...
^^^^
Line 5, column 608, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...how they actually found heir food. thus this theories actually rule out this theory....
^^^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Finally
...potential to move in a faster way. finally, the article posits that agnostids woul...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 162, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'parasites'' or 'parasite's'?
Suggestion: parasites'; parasite's
...ontrast, the lecturers position is that parasites family are not big, they consist of a s...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, look, second, so, then, thus, well, in contrast, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1513.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 295.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12881355932 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53426957203 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538983050847 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 468.0 419.366225166 112% => 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: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.1356957027 49.2860985944 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.5625 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4375 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.375 7.06452816374 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 4.19205298013 239% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.185256046169 0.272083759551 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0651425984014 0.0996497079465 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.055591870284 0.0662205650399 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.112043645294 0.162205337803 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0126155867589 0.0443174109184 28% => 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: 12.0 13.3589403974 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.