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 R. robustus is scavenger-not the hunter of the dinosaur and provides three reasons to support the claim. However, the lecturer refutes the claim and says that the R. robustus is an active hunter and articulates each evidence that debunks a reason taken in the passage to claim it is a scavenger.
First of all, lecturer says that R. robustus is the size twice the remnant dinosaur in its stomach which supports the theory that the hunter should have size twice more than the hunted animal. The baby dinosaur of psittacosaur and dinosaur with similar size may be a potential food source for it, the lecturer claims.
Secondly, a similar leg positioned earlier humans as the R. robustus was successful in the hunting; this shows that it was also can hunt down the animal even with the short leg. The evidence makes the reason in the article holds no water in the sense for predicting the behavior of R. robustus that it was a scavenger.
Lastly, Lack of teeth marks in the dinosaur in its stomach does not necessarily show its hunting behavior. The lecturer added that R. robustus may have big teeth that were used for the grabbing of the pray; rather using teeth biting and chewing, it may have swallowed the animal.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 18.0 30.3222958057 59% => More preposition wanted.
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: 1041.0 1373.03311258 76% => OK
No of words: 217.0 270.72406181 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.79723502304 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.8380880478 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42446246018 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 111.0 145.348785872 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.511520737327 0.540411800872 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 315.9 419.366225166 75% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.4403406552 49.2860985944 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 74.3571428571 110.228320801 67% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.5 21.698381199 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.92857142857 7.06452816374 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.131835564641 0.272083759551 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0430538187947 0.0996497079465 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0437027331005 0.0662205650399 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0784943160882 0.162205337803 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0143582175034 0.0443174109184 32% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.9 13.3589403974 67% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 53.8541721854 120% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 11.0289183223 73% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.26 12.2367328918 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.65 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 45.0 63.6247240618 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.