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.
In the given set of materials, the reading passage strongly postulates several theories on how the agnostics survived millions of years ago, and provided three reasons to endorse its idea. On the other hand, the professor states that the ideas mentioned by the author had series of flaws and gainsay each of the arguments mentioned in the reading passage.
First, the passage begins by asserting that agnostics where free-swimming predators. The writer assumed that since there is presence of other kinds of primitive arthropods who are capable of swimming and are predators, agnostics also had ample amount of tiny species to hunt on. Nonetheless, the lecturer highlights that other ocean dwellers are presented with prominent eyes, to help the with their vision, where as agnostics have comparatively smaller eyes. Because the remnants of agnostics does not present with any special adaptive feature, the author's point can't be cast aside.
Next, the professor in the lecture highlights the weakness in the author's theory that agnostics were sea floor dwellers. He mentions that the species living on the sea floor are incapable of moving at a rapid pace. They are usually found to be slow locomotor and as a result, are located in a single specific location, whereas agnostics were identified in a broader geographical location. These claims refutes the writer's implication that the agnostics were seafloor dwellers.
Ultimately, the article wraps his arguments by mentioning the parasite theory. He details that in current day, several arthropods live in the form of a parasite, by surviving on large species for food and shelter. Therefore, the agnostics might have survived as a parasite on fish or other large species. However, the orator rebuts the author's claim by mentioning that parasites commonly does not presents in large number, as enormous amount of parasite may kill the host. However, the agnostids were found in a colossal amount. Thus, the parasite theory can be cast aside.
In conclusion, while the reading passage provides us with several plausible theories on survival mechanism of the agnostids, the lecturer counters each of the author's claims by providing valid information and evidences.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 409, Rule ID: WHERE_AS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'whereas'?
Suggestion: whereas
...nt eyes, to help the with their vision, where as agnostics have comparatively smaller ey...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 565, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...ial adaptive feature, the authors point cant be cast aside. Next, the professor i...
^^^^
Line 5, column 67, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... lecture highlights the weakness in the authors theory that agnostics were sea floor dw...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 403, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'refute'.
Suggestion: refute
...der geographical location. These claims refutes the writers implication that the agnost...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 415, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...ical location. These claims refutes the writers implication that the agnostics were sea...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 398, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'present'
Suggestion: present
...ioning that parasites commonly does not presents in large number, as enormous amount of ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, nonetheless, so, therefore, thus, well, whereas, while, in conclusion, as a result, 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: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 30.3222958057 158% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1875.0 1373.03311258 137% => OK
No of words: 352.0 270.72406181 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32670454545 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33147354134 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71316039824 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 145.348785872 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548295454545 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 582.3 419.366225166 139% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.4935411007 49.2860985944 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.294117647 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7058823529 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.05882352941 7.06452816374 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.0920935412566 0.272083759551 34% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0363884866619 0.0996497079465 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0558048226924 0.0662205650399 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0453290662859 0.162205337803 28% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0332179532017 0.0443174109184 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.3589403974 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 53.8541721854 79% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.63 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.34 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 63.6247240618 165% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.