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 lecture are about the life pattern of the agnostids. In the reading, three possible explanation was proposed. The lecturer is the opinion of these interpretations are faulty.
Firstly, in the passage, it is stated that the other relatives of the agnostids were great swimmers and predators, which suggests that they have similar behavior. Moreover, that there were several smaller animals than the agnostids makes it more sensible hypothesis. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. She claims that other relatives of the creature had large eyes, which helped them to locate the prey. Conversely, the agnostids have either poor or blind eyes, which proposes that they did not depend on the eyes in order to catch other creatures. If it had been predators, it would have developed special organisms used for detecting its prey, but no evidence is found from the fossils.
Secondly, the author posits that the agnostids were living on the seafloor and feeding on the carcasses of other animals or bacteries. Nonetheless, the lecturer refutes this idea by mentioning that creatures living on the seafloor stay localized and move steadily. Conversely, the agnostids were speedy species, and its fossils were found from divergent areas of the world. Therefore, the species that is agile and traveled long distances have no similarity with creatures which dwell on the seafloor, which diminishes the possibility of the theory.
Finally, the author claims that this creatures were parasites as their currently living anthropods relatives, and lived on fish or larger anthropods. The lecturer, however, claims that solid evidence of fossils proved that the body of this species were magnitude. Furthermore, enormous amount of parasites are not available to exist because its effect on the host animal would occasion demise of the host fauna.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 33, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...ry. Finally, the author claims that this creatures were parasites as their curre...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, moreover, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1578.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 295.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34915254237 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69017598414 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 145.348785872 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.55593220339 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 491.4 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => 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: 37.4911968834 49.2860985944 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.625 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4375 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06452816374 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.27373068433 211% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.212156034437 0.272083759551 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.069216717545 0.0996497079465 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0921110346315 0.0662205650399 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111697080861 0.162205337803 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0704927074192 0.0443174109184 159% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 53.8541721854 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.75 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.35 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 63.6247240618 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.