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.
Both the reading passage and the lecture are discussing whether R. robutus was a hunter or not. The reading claims that the R. robustus couldn’t be a hunter and gives three reasons in support. Whereas, the lecture counters all three points made in the reading passage in favor of R. robustus not being a hunter.
Firstly, the passage maintains that R. robustus was too small to be a hunter. They were much smaller in size than their supposed prey. The lecture counters this point by claiming that though R. roubstus was smaller in size than full grown dinosaurs, they were bigger than baby dinosaurs. In fact, the lecture claims that R. robustus’ body mass was more than twice than that of baby dinosaurs. So, R. robustus could very well be hunters of the baby dinosaurs 150 million years ago.
Secondly, the reading claims that the legs of R. robustus matches more with scavengers than with hunters. Their legs were smaller and also positioned sideways. From this, the reading concluded that R. robustus could not have been hunters The lecture provides an example to contradict this claim. Tasmanian devils, well-known hunters, had similar legs as R. robustus. So, neither smaller size nor sideway positioning of legs could stop R. robustus from hunting.
Finally, the reading says that as there were no bite marks on the bones of the dinosaurs found inside R. robustus’ stomach, it is more likely that R. robustus ate dinosaurs’ eggs rather than hunting down full grown dinosaurs. On the other hand, the lecture claims that R. robustus used to swallow their meals in big pieces as there were little to no wear in their back teeth. So, even if the dinosaurs found inside the stomach of R. robustus were hunted down there wouldn’t have been any bite mark on the bones of the dinosaurs.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 194, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whereas” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ter and gives three reasons in support. Whereas, the lecture counters all three points ...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 94, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: smaller
...oo small to be a hunter. They were much smaller in size than their supposed prey. The lecture c...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 208, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: smaller
...by claiming that though R. roubstus was smaller in size than full grown dinosaurs, they were bi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 439, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
.... robustus could very well be hunters of the baby dinosaurs 150 million years ago...
^^
Line 4, column 376, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[6]
Message: “So , even if” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... little to no wear in their back teeth. So, even if the dinosaurs found inside the stomach of R. robustus were hunted down there wouldn’t have been any bite mark on the bones of the dinosaurs.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 529, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ite mark on the bones of the dinosaurs.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, well, whereas, as to, in fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 5.01324503311 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1494.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 307.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.8664495114 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.38833972091 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485342019544 0.540411800872 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 426.6 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => 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: 29.0 13.0662251656 222% => Too many sentences.
Sentence length: 10.0 21.2450331126 47% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 25.2662269091 49.2860985944 51% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 51.5172413793 110.228320801 47% => More chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 10.5862068966 21.698381199 49% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 3.79310344828 7.06452816374 54% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 21.0 4.27373068433 491% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.165775449707 0.272083759551 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0467526320167 0.0996497079465 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0552867356913 0.0662205650399 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.104486203403 0.162205337803 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.044247362563 0.0443174109184 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 6.8 13.3589403974 51% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 78.25 53.8541721854 145% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 4.8 11.0289183223 44% => Flesch kincaid grade is low.
coleman_liau_index: 9.78 12.2367328918 80% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.81 8.42419426049 81% => OK
difficult_words: 52.0 63.6247240618 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 3.5 10.7273730684 33% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 6.0 10.498013245 57% => Gunning_fog is low.
text_standard: 7.0 11.2008830022 62% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.