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

Essay topics:

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 article claims that R. robustus was just a scavenger rather than an active hunter by providing three different possible reasons for it. However, the professor disputes the statements by providing convincing examples for each of the reasons. The examples provided by the professor are as below.

First, The article claims that the size of the R. robustus was too small that it can not hunt the huge psittacosaurs. The professor disagrees with the statement by saying that an animal can hunt the prey which is of twice the mass of its own. If the fully grown psittacosaurs were of two meters, the R. rubustus might have hunted the baby psittacosaurs which are small enough to be hunted by R. robustus

Second, The passage posits that the legs of R. robustus are more suited for scavenging than hunting. The professor refutes this claim by giving the example of tezmraid devil. It is an animal similar to the R. rubustus and have the same size and position of the legs. The professor says that this animal can have speed up to 15 km/hr and is an active hunter. Hence, the conclusion made in the passage based on the legs of R. robustus of being a non-hunter is not convincing.

Third, The article state that the bones inside the stomach of the R. robustus did not have tooth marks. The professor gives a proper explaination to refute this statement. She says that R. robustus never used their back teeth for chewing. Instead, It used to swallow the prey either whole or in big pieces. Because of this reason there is no tooth marks on the bones of psittacosaurs found inside the stomach of R. robustus.

So, If we combine the idea made by article and lecture, It can be concluded that the claims and supporting explainations made by the article about R. robustus being a scavenger rather than hunter are not true.

Votes
Average: 7.3 (1 vote)
Essay Categories

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 404, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...small enough to be hunted by R. robustus Second, The passage posits that the legs...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 308, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Because” 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.
...the prey either whole or in big pieces. Because of this reason there is no tooth marks ...
^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, hence, however, if, second, so, third, as to

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1507.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 320.0 270.72406181 118% => OK
Chars per words: 4.709375 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22948505376 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55799718713 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.475 0.540411800872 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 456.3 419.366225166 109% => 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: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less 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: 26.0 13.0662251656 199% => OK
Sentence length: 12.0 21.2450331126 56% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.5540795173 49.2860985944 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 57.9615384615 110.228320801 53% => More chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 12.3076923077 21.698381199 57% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 1.96153846154 7.06452816374 28% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 16.0 4.27373068433 374% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.144632206955 0.272083759551 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0410496273531 0.0996497079465 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0462825851412 0.0662205650399 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0813624387776 0.162205337803 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0464206759407 0.0443174109184 105% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 6.9 13.3589403974 52% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 76.22 53.8541721854 142% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 5.6 11.0289183223 51% => Flesch kincaid grade is low.
coleman_liau_index: 9.15 12.2367328918 75% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.99 8.42419426049 83% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 6.8 10.498013245 65% => OK
text_standard: 7.0 11.2008830022 62% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.