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

Essay topics:

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.

Now listen to part of a lecture on the topic you just read about.

Unfortunately, each of the three theories about how agnostids lived has a serious weakness.

First, we know that other types of arthropods swam in the open ocean, hunting their prey. However, all of those arthropods had large, well-developed eyes. Vision is one of the best ways for a predator to track its prey. But agnostids had tiny, poorly-developed eyes and were sometimes completely blind! This seems to rule out the idea that they were predators. If they did chase after prey, they would have had some other, special sensory organ to help them find prey, but there's no evidence of this in the fossil record.

Second, it seems unlikely that agnostids lived on the seafloor. Animals that are seafloor dwellers typically don't have the ability to move very fast or very far. They move slowly across the seafloor and stay in localized areas rather than spreading to new areas. So, typically we find each seafloor dweller species occupying a small geographic area where it had originated and nowhere else. However, many agnostid species inhabited multiple geographic areas spread across large distances. This suggests that agnostids were able to move from one area to another pretty fast. The ability to move easily across large distances would be highly unusual for seafloor dwellers.

Finally, the parasite theory. Well, one thing that's typical of parasites is that their populations are not very large. Parasite populations have to stay within certain limits, because if there were too many parasites, they would kill off the host organisms they live on. But we're pretty sure that the populations of many agnostids were in fact very large. We can tell because for many species we've been able to find vast amounts of fossilized individuals. So, the great size of agnostid populations seems to rule out the theory they were parasites.

Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they challenge the specific theories presented in the reading passage.

There is an issue concerning how agnostids may have lived in the past. The lecturer indicates some severe counter-arguments against the assertions mentioned in the reading passage by providing disparate theories.

Firstly, in accordance with the writer, the agnostids may be good at swimming and may hunt their prey a lot since other types of primitive arthropods were strong swimmers and active predators. The speaker, however, repudiates the claim and declares that vision is important to track prey, those arthropods had well-developed eyes, but agnostids only had tiny eyes, and some of them were even blind. Further, they would have a strong ability to sense the organisms around them if they had hunted a lot.

Secondly, the author maintains that agnostids probably had lived on the seafloor since other primitive arthropods also dwelled on the seafloor, and they could rely on dead organisms or bacteria. On the contrary, the lecturer counterattacks the viewpoint in the reading, demonstrating that creatures living on the seafloor do not have the ability to move fast since they usually stay in the local areas instead of moving to new areas. Additionally, this ability is useless for seafloor dwellers. While agnostids could spread long distances and they were able to move fast.

Finally, the article holds that agnostids were probably parasites since there are many modern arthropods that exist as parasites. On the other hand, the professor offers an opposed opinion that the population of parasites is usually not a lot because if there are too many parasites, plenty of organisms that they live on will be killed. In contrast, the population of agnostids was not large, therefore, agnostids were not parasites.

Votes
Average: 8 (1 vote)
Essay Categories

Comments

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, while, in contrast, on the contrary, on the other hand

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1454.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 275.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28727272727 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07223819929 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82113862483 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.56 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 456.3 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.2627740566 49.2860985944 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.166666667 110.228320801 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9166666667 21.698381199 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.25 7.06452816374 173% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.208192446881 0.272083759551 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0862148418501 0.0996497079465 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0741702797698 0.0662205650399 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122975588943 0.162205337803 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0578085513077 0.0443174109184 130% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 53.8541721854 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.