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 this set of material, the writer strongly postulates that Agnostids, primitive arthropods-relatives' fossils record has indicated that they have certain characteristics features that determines how they have lived, and established three theoriess to endorse its idea. ON the other hand, the lecturer casts doubt on all the three theories, gainsays each of its argument.
First and foremost, the writer begins by asserting that Agnostids are free-swimming predators, as most ancestors from the same family used to be predator and prey on the small animal. On the other hand, the lecture refutes this standpoint by indicating that in order to be a strong swimmer and prey on small animals, Agnostids must have a strong vision whereas their fossils record showed that they were blind. Moreover, there was no evidence that showed that they had acquired another sensory modification that helped them to be prey or been a good swimmer.
Further, the lecturer argued by stating that mostly see dwellers lacks the ability to transport to far off places. As see dwellers are mostly localized to small areas and usually are extremely sluggish.Whereas, Agnostids' fossil records were found from many different geological locations that really indicate that they are not limited to one place and had strong locomotory skills. This claim refutes the writer's implication that Agnostids could be sea dwellers just like their other primitives.
Ultimately, the writer wraps its arguments by positioning that Agnostids were parasites as they had hosts like fishes and other arthropods available. Not surprisingly, the lecturer takes issue with this claim by declaring that if Agnostids were parasites, they would kill the majority of their host population. This is due to the fact that their population was enormous in number as indicated from their fossils records. Therefore, there would not have any host population left. Yet there was no such harm seen to the host population.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 202, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Whereas
...reas and usually are extremely sluggish.Whereas, Agnostids fossil records were found fr...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 252, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'many'.
Suggestion: many
...gnostids fossil records were found from many different geological locations that really indica...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 405, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...comotory skills. This claim refutes the writers implication that Agnostids could be sea...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 369, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: enormous
...e to the fact that their population was enormous in number as indicated from their fossils records...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, if, moreover, really, so, therefore, well, whereas, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 22.412803532 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1609.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 306.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25816993464 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18244613648 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73298955712 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 145.348785872 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545751633987 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 492.3 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.8767306231 49.2860985944 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.769230769 110.228320801 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5384615385 21.698381199 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.84615384615 7.06452816374 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
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: 0.191908814187 0.272083759551 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0671123177147 0.0996497079465 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0584218967848 0.0662205650399 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118349702866 0.162205337803 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0412964741603 0.0443174109184 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.3589403974 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.91 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.