The reading and the lecture are both about agnostids, which are the ancestors of anthropods and modern insects. While the author of the reading passage proposes three different hypotheses regarding how agnostids might have lived, the professor claims that all these theories have weaknesses. She casts doubt on the main points made in the reading by providing three controversial reasons.
In the reading, the writer begins by saying that agnostids may have been free-swimming predators and haunt tiny animals in the sea. However, the professor disagrees with this idea. She states that most marine animals have large eyes because they need to chase their prey in the sea. Evidence shows that agnostids had poorly developed eyes, and in some cases, they were blind. Also, there is no evidence of any other tracking organs in their fossils to confirm that they had the ability to track their prey.
Furthermore, according to the text, agnostids may have been seafloor dwellers, just like some other types of primitive arthropods. On the other hand, the professor asserts that almost all seafloor dwellers move slowly. Therefore, they usually occupy a limited area of the sea in the proximity of their habitat. Nevertheless, evidence has shown that agnostids spread in a large area of the sea, so they had the ability to move fast. Consequently, they could not have been seafloor dwellers.
Finally, the writer believes that agnostids may have been parasites living on larger animals. Not surprisingly, the professor refutes this assertion by contending that parasites usually do not have large populations because they would kill the host, but agnostids had large populations. This evidence rules out the possibility that they were parasites.
To sum up, both the author and the lecturer hold conflicting views on how agnostids were living.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, furthermore, however, if, may, nevertheless, regarding, so, therefore, well, while, in some cases, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1557.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 295.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27796610169 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63820296973 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.549152542373 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 473.4 419.366225166 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.0436943908 49.2860985944 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.5882352941 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.3529411765 21.698381199 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.47058823529 7.06452816374 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.160901002094 0.272083759551 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0533303693058 0.0996497079465 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0400772987989 0.0662205650399 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.096834364281 0.162205337803 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0252569768939 0.0443174109184 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 65.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.5 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.