Archaeologists have recently found a fossil of a 150-million-year-old mam-mal known as Repenomomus 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 psittaco-saur 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 reading passage explains the nature of a 150-million-year-old mammal known as Repenomamus and its eating and predatory characteristics. While the passage presents and supports views in favour of R robustus being a scavenger, the speaker in the lecture firmly believes that the dinosaur could well have been a predator as well. The subsequent paragraphs shall deal with the arguments developed by the two sides.
To start with, the reading passage states that R robustus was small sized- preferably of the size of a domestic cat. Hence, it was unlikely for a creature of that size to have eaten psittacosaurs which was about two meters tall, when full grown. The lecturer refutes this point of view and states that robustus could have swallowed baby dinoasuars. She states that the psittacosaur found in its stomach was twice less than its size fulfilling the size-small relationship.
Secondly, the passage states that R robustus had short leds positioned sideways which were deemed not suitable for hunting. The speaker tactfully presents an example of a modern day creature- the Tasmanian Devil, an active predator, which have legs positioned in the same fashion. Additionally, the author states that this animal can run upto 50 kilometres per hour. She uses this example to illustrate that if a modern day predator with limb alignment as this can turn out to be a predator, so could the R robustus.
To finsih off, the reading text argues that the presence of teeth marks on the bones of the eaten animal points toward the fact that R robustus can probably eaten an unguarded egg from the psittacosaur's nest. The professor puts forward a counterlogic stating that R robustus possessed powerful jaws and were characterised by the absence of back teeth used for chewing. Hence, it is highly probable that it had swallowed its prey unswalloed or in big chunks, thus leaving no teeth marks on its bones.
In conclusion, it is understood that the professor and the author of the passgae have diametrically opposite views on the characterisitcs of R robustus. Thus, they would find it difficult to settle for a common ground related to this issue.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
hence, if, second, secondly, so, thus, well, while, in conclusion, to start with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => 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: 1804.0 1373.03311258 131% => OK
No of words: 357.0 270.72406181 132% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05322128852 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34677393335 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92529525906 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 145.348785872 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.543417366947 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 542.7 419.366225166 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.6021472419 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.75 110.228320801 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3125 21.698381199 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 7.06452816374 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.27373068433 211% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.176640867858 0.272083759551 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0569988373399 0.0996497079465 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0467442592493 0.0662205650399 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0970254961012 0.162205337803 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.042673870427 0.0443174109184 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 13.3589403974 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.31 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.66 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 63.6247240618 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.