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 passage states that Repenomamus robustus (R. robustus) a 150- million year old mammal could not have been a active hunter, rather it would have been a scavenger instead. The passage provides three reasons for supporting the claim. However, lecture says that R.Robustus could be an active hunter and refutes all the reasons.
First the passage claims that R.robbustus was small, about same size of a domestic cat which is much smaller than psittacosaurs. Due to the size difference, it is unlikely that R.robustus hunded psittacosaurs. The lectures refutes this point by saying R.robustus is bigger than baby psittacosaurs and could have hunted baby psittacpsaurs. R.robustus was more than twice the size than baby psittacosaurs. It has been analysed that in order for a hunter to prey the hunter must be more than twice the size than the prey and in this case R.robustus was more than twice in size as compared to baby psittacosaurs.
Secondly, the passage posits that R.robuscus had short legs and to the side rather than directly beneath the animal. Due to its short legs it wouldn't have chased the prey. Its legs seemed suitable for scavenging rather than hunting. The lectures says that there is a modern mamal called as Tasmanian Devil who has short legs to the side but still it can run at 15km/hr and is an active and successful predator. According to lecture, if the tasmanian devil who has short legs can be a successful predator then R.robusucus can also be an active hunter.
Third, the passage says that, there is no evidence that R.robustus ate other dinosaurs as they are no teeth marks found on bones inside the stomach of R.robuscus which usually is the case. The lecture refutes this point by saying that, R.robuscus did have powerful jaws but R.robuscus didn't use the back teeth for chewing as no wear to the back teeth was found. R.robuscus swallowed their prey directly without chewing.
So the lecture refutes all the points which are made in the lecture and claims that R.robustus would have been a active hunter and not scavenger.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 109, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...ion year old mammal could not have been a active hunter, rather it would have bee...
^
Line 1, column 263, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Robustus
...the claim. However, lecture says that R.Robustus could be an active hunter and refutes a...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 224, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'refute'.
Suggestion: refute
...stus hunded psittacosaurs. The lectures refutes this point by saying R.robustus is bigg...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 143, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...th the animal. Due to its short legs it wouldnt have chased the prey. Its legs seemed s...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 247, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'say'.
Suggestion: say
...nging rather than hunting. The lectures says that there is a modern mamal called as ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 270, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... that, R.robuscus did have powerful jaws but R.robuscus didnt use the back teeth ...
^^
Line 7, column 287, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... did have powerful jaws but R.robuscus didnt use the back teeth for chewing as no we...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 404, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...R.robuscus swallowed their prey directly without chewing. So the lecture refut...
^^
Line 9, column 112, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... claims that R.robustus would have been a active hunter and not scavenger.
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, still, then, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 10.4613686534 201% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1721.0 1373.03311258 125% => OK
No of words: 349.0 270.72406181 129% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93123209169 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32221490584 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61522189405 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 145.348785872 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.458452722063 0.540411800872 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 517.5 419.366225166 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.5937819679 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.6111111111 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3888888889 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.94444444444 7.06452816374 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 4.19205298013 215% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.27373068433 234% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.131068011785 0.272083759551 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0501863742457 0.0996497079465 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0585940628539 0.0662205650399 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0837920781576 0.162205337803 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0610341478327 0.0443174109184 138% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 13.3589403974 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.47 8.42419426049 89% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.