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 reading passage and the lecture are both about an ancient mammal called R. robustus and their eating habits. The lecturer completely refutes the arguments in the article. She argues that these explanations are faulty.
Firstly, the lecture states that robustus were able to chase and hunter not only scavenge dinosaur eggs. This is because although the small size of robustus they have twice the mass of their prey. This is the expected size relation between hunter and prey. Therefore, robustus hunted baby dinosaur since they were bigger than babies. This directly opposes the reading passage that states that due to the size difference robustus were not able to successfully hunt dinosaurs.
Secondly, the lecturer explains that the short-leg and its position somewhat to the side of animal did not impair their ability to hunt. Furthermore, the lecturer gives the example of Tasmanian Devil that presented similar side leg and were an active and successful predator. Consequently, robustus similarly could run to catch their prey. This idea disagrees with the article that claims that this characteristic suggests that robustus were not able to chase after prey since dinosaur were fast moving.
Finally, the lecturer believes that the teeth marks on the bones of eaten dinosaurs were not expected to be found because robustus had a powerful jaw, hence, it did not use back teeth for chewing the prey, they only swallow whole or big pieces of the prey. The reading passage, on the other hand, argues that it is an evidence that robustus only swallow the dinosaur eggs and were not able to chase or hunt.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, second, secondly, similarly, so, therefore, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1357.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 266.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1015037594 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03850299372 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.39859346445 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 140.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.526315789474 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 425.7 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 56.3849467697 49.2860985944 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.4666666667 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7333333333 21.698381199 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.26666666667 7.06452816374 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.131353006137 0.272083759551 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0514341031044 0.0996497079465 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0400633997952 0.0662205650399 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0851877056122 0.162205337803 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0217832311292 0.0443174109184 49% => 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: 11.5 13.3589403974 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.0 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 4.5 10.7273730684 42% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.