Archaeologists have recently found a fossil of a 150-million-year-old mammal
known as Repenornamus robustus (R. robustus). Interestingly, the mammal's
stomach contained the remains of a psittacosaur dinosaur. Some researchers have
therefore suggested that R. robustus was an active hunter of dinosaurs. However,
a closer analysis has made the hypothesis that R. robustus was an active hunter
unlikely. It was probably Just a scavenger that sometimes fed on dinosaur eggs
containing unhatched dinosaurs.
First, R. robustus, like most mammals living 150 million years ago, was small—
only about the size of a domestic cat. It was much smaller than psittacosaurs,
which were almost two meters tall when full grown. Given this size difference, it is
unlikely that R. robustus would have been able to successfully hunt psittacosaurs
or similar dinosaurs.
Second, the legs of R. robustus appear much more suited for scavenging
than hunting: they were short and positioned somewhat to the side rather than
directly underneath the animal. These features suggest that R. robustus did not
chase after prey. Psittacosaurs—the type of dinosaur found in the stomach of
R. robustus—were fast moving. It is unlikely that they would have been caught by
such short-legged animals.
Third, the dinosaur bones inside the stomach of the R. robustus provide no
evidence to support the idea that the dinosaur had been actively hunted. When
an animal has been hunted and eaten by another animal, there are usually teeth
marks on the bones of the animal that was eaten. But the bones of the psittacosaur
inside the R. robustus stomach do not have teeth marks. This suggests that
R. robustus found an unguarded dinosaur nest with eggs and simply swallowed an
egg with the small psittacosaur still inside the eggshell.
The paragraph about the remains of the psittacosaur dinosaur in Repenomamus robustus's stomach arises questions about its potential.The lecture about this topic provides contradictory views by opposing the reasons stated in the paragraph.
Firstly, regarding the capability of R.robustus, the article says that the size of the R.robustus is as small as the size of the domestic cat and the dinosaur will be more than 2 metre when fully grown. This is taken as support by them for their theory that R.robustus was not an active hunter. In contrast, the lecturer supports his opposition by that the dinosaur in the stomach of R.robustus could have been baby dinosaur. Therefore, the lecturer supports his view with the help of size factor that the baby dinosaur will be twice smaller than R.robustus. This lecturer's idea presents the R.robustus as a hunter.
Secondly, the article poses that legs present at the sides, rather than under the their body, supports their claim and presents R.robustus as a scavenger then a hunter as they cannot chase with their short and sided legs. And they also add that, dinosaurs are fast moving animals. Opposing this, the lecturer gives support to his statement by giving the
side-legged predator Tasmanian devil which travels as 15km/hr as an example.
Thirdly, article posits that the absence of teeth marks in the bones of the dinosaur as support for their clain. But, the lecturer poses and gives support to his hypothesis by saying that the way of consuming food by R.robustus is different. The lecturer underscores his theory with the help of the character of the jaws of R.robustus to grab and hold, and their habit of not chewing and only swallowing their food due to lack of back teeth's capability.
Comments
please evaluate
please evaluate
Both the reading passage and the professor/lecturer discuss whether the dinosaur was hunted by the r. robust or not ,the in contrast to the author of reading passage the professor emphasized that the dinosaur was hunted by the Robust ,
First of all The author pointed out that the Size of Robust not big enough to hunt smaller dinosaur or same size , the Professor demonstrate this point by claiming that scientifically that robust stomach size of robust makes him eligible to hunt same size or twice size , professor elaborate on this point when he mentions that the robust might hunt dinosaur babe not mature
Secondly about the leg of the Robust the author claim that “its seems much more suited for scavenging than hunting:” the professor cast doubt that by claiming that the leg is not a measure for hunting by giving example about other hunter have almost the same legs criteria and this animal fast 15km /hr and good hunter
Finally the used the fact that there is no any teeth marks on the bones that been found inside the robust stomach as strong evidence that the robust did not hunted active dinosaur this the professor rebuts this evidence by suggestion that the dinosaur might be swallowed by the Robust and he explains that by discussing the nature of the robust mouth doe not has teeth at the end
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 132, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
...ch arises questions about its potential.The lecture about this topic provides contr...
^^^
Line 3, column 117, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ize of the R.robustus is as small as the size of the domestic cat and the dinosau...
^^
Line 3, column 566, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lecturers'' or 'lecturer's'?
Suggestion: lecturers'; lecturer's
... be twice smaller than R.robustus. This lecturers idea presents the R.robustus as a hunte...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 79, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'their'?
Suggestion: the; their
...present at the sides, rather than under the their body, supports their claim and presents...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 354, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s support to his statement by giving the side-legged predator Tasmanian devil whi...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1467.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 290.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05862068966 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12666770723 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64770333251 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 145.348785872 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.520689655172 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 436.5 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.3581408813 49.2860985944 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.25 110.228320801 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1666666667 21.698381199 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 7.06452816374 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.133743015484 0.272083759551 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0607944213411 0.0996497079465 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0380263992111 0.0662205650399 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0641357248032 0.162205337803 40% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0537302624512 0.0443174109184 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.