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 article introduces the topic of the million-year-old mammal known as R. robustus. More specifically, the writer discusses about the mammal and its behaviour that might be true. However, the lecturer disagrees to the writer.
In the reading, the author introduces that R. robustus was not an active hunter; rather, it was a scavenger. Nevertheless, the lecturer disagrees stating that they were actually hunter and they haunted small sized dinosaur and their babies. Also, she continues by stating that the body of the R. robustus was 72 times larger than the dinosaur found in its body.
The author also claims that the size of R. robustus was so small that it did not haunt dinosaur. But, the lecturer rebuts by stating that the similar size tasmania devil can run fast and haunts on several animals; so, this case also applies on the mammal on discussion.
Furthermore, the passage also claims that there were no evidence of the tooth marks on the dinasaur in body of mammal to support that the R. robustus were hunters. However, the lecturer refutes by mentioning that robustus actually swalloed the whole without chewing, although, they had sharp teeth. She continues saying that they did not use their sharp jaws while chewing; as a result there were no marks of teeth in the body of the dinosaur found in the stomach of R. robustus.
To sum up, both the writer and the lecturer have conflicting viewpoints about the eating behaviour of the R. robustus.Therefore, it is clear that they will have trouble finding common grounds on this issue.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 208, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ever, the lecturer refutes by mentioning that robustus actually swalloed the whol...
^^
Line 8, column 119, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Therefore
...the eating behaviour of the R. robustus.Therefore, it is clear that they will have troubl...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, furthermore, however, if, nevertheless, so, therefore, while, as a result, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1301.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 262.0 270.72406181 97% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96564885496 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02323427807 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68769780299 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 132.0 145.348785872 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.503816793893 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 384.3 419.366225166 92% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => 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: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.3001523864 49.2860985944 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 76.5294117647 110.228320801 69% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.4117647059 21.698381199 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.17647058824 7.06452816374 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
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: 0.216478295143 0.272083759551 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0647909454214 0.0996497079465 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.060084936128 0.0662205650399 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122010146118 0.162205337803 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0432221097213 0.0443174109184 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.7 13.3589403974 73% => 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: 11.25 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.0 10.7273730684 47% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.