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.
Whether should people correct the teachers' or the leaders' mistakes is always a debated question. If this problem is not dealt with well, it might cause some harmful effects. In my opinion, I believe to interrupt and correct the speaker is the best way to solve this issue. And there are several points that I want to mention.
First of all, it is rather important to remind the speakers of their mistake right away, because it can avoid other people listening to the talk to misunderstand the truth. Furthermore, if the wrong idea is not revised directly, other people will remember the wrong concept or information which can cause serious consequences. For example, when I was in university, I once attended a meeting with other students on the basketball team. The leader was announcing some crucial information about an upcoming game we were going to participate in. However, the leader then gave the wrong date of the game which dramatically caused the whole team to miss the game. If someone who already knew the time was wrong and spoke up then that wouldn't happen.
Second, though it is the seemingly proper solution to the problem, we should also keep in mind that the tone of the corrector should not make the speaker get ashamed. That is, the person who speaks up should be aware of how not to make the situation turn weird. Taking an experience of mine as an example, I accidentally noticed my teacher was teaching a topic wrongly. And in order to deal with it, I used a joke that is relative to the lecture and gave my teacher hints to amend his mistake. As a result, the joke not only helped my teacher but also gave all the people in the classroom additional laughter.
In conclusion, to correct the speaker's mistake is a good solution if we use an appropriate attitude to face it. Hence, we can not only solve the problem but also not humiliating the speaker.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 730, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...e time was wrong and spoke up then that wouldnt happen. Second, though it is the see...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, second, so, then, well, for example, in conclusion, as a result, first of all, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1552.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 332.0 270.72406181 123% => OK
Chars per words: 4.67469879518 5.08290768461 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.2685907696 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56636404583 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 145.348785872 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.551204819277 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 487.8 419.366225166 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 3.25607064018 276% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 1.25165562914 559% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 30.5149574759 49.2860985944 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.2941176471 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5294117647 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.41176470588 7.06452816374 119% => 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 : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0470372361842 0.272083759551 17% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0151252964955 0.0996497079465 15% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0227045410961 0.0662205650399 34% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0281300879478 0.162205337803 17% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0185449582771 0.0443174109184 42% => 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: 10.3 13.3589403974 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.81 12.2367328918 80% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.67 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.