The article states that Repenomamus robustus (R. robustus) is most likely a scavenger than a hunter who sometimes fed on dinosaur eggs instead of hunting them. To bolster the conclusion, the article provides three reasons. The speaker however, suggests that R. robustus was more likely a hunter than and scavenger and refutes each one of the arguments provided in the reading.
First, the article states that R. robustus was about the size of a domestic cat and much smaller than the psittacosaurs and thus, would not have been able to hunt psittacosaurs or any similar sized animals. The speaker on the other hand, refutes the argument saying that it could have hunted on baby dinasours. Even though it was small, R. robustus was bigger in size compared to a baby psittacosaurs and hence it is very likely that R. robustus could have hunted baby psittacosaurs or similar dinosaurs.
Second, the article posits that the size and position of R. robustus's legs were more suited for scavenging than hunting. The speaker contradicts this by providing an example of the Tasmanian Devil. The Tasmanian Devil, much like the R. robustus had short legs in the side and yet, it was able to achieve speeds up to 50km/hr. It was an active and a successfull predator. This makes the speaker question the reasoning provided by the article.
Third, the article talks about absence of teeth marks on the bones of the psittacosaurs found in the stomach of R. robustus. The author provides an aditional information that directly contradicts the above argument. She says that R. robustus had powerful jaws and it has been seen in many studies that they did not use their back teeth for chewing. They would either swallow the animal whole or in big pieces. This, according to the speaker could be the explanation for the absence of teeth marks in the bones of the animal.
In sum, the speaker expresses her disapproval of the conclusion provided by the article and provides her own explanation to refute the arguments of the article.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 354, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: bigger
...en though it was small, R. robustus was bigger in size compared to a baby psittacosaurs and he...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, hence, however, second, so, third, thus, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1682.0 1373.03311258 123% => OK
No of words: 342.0 270.72406181 126% => OK
Chars per words: 4.91812865497 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30037696126 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65256092813 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.473684210526 0.540411800872 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 514.8 419.366225166 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 13.0662251656 191% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.164187723 49.2860985944 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 67.28 110.228320801 61% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.68 21.698381199 63% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.6 7.06452816374 37% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 17.0 4.27373068433 398% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.132080583366 0.272083759551 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0355211508606 0.0996497079465 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0464624926843 0.0662205650399 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0700344032125 0.162205337803 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0524948669947 0.0443174109184 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.6 13.3589403974 64% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 66.74 53.8541721854 124% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 11.0289183223 65% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.66 12.2367328918 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.42 8.42419426049 88% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.2 10.498013245 69% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.