The article and the lecture are both discussing about the validity of a fossils which supposed to be the remains of bee nests. The article states that the possibility of this theory is skeptical and gives three reasons for support. The lecturer dismisses all reasons by saying that perfectly possibility of this fossils is not skeptical, and the arguments of reading is not convincing.
First of all, refers to lack of any actual bees' fossils, and makes doubt for the theory. The professor opposes this point by saying that lack of bees' fossils do not mean that there were not any bee 200 million years ago. She explains that bees could only preserve in resin of specific tree, a sticky material in the body of the tree. As those trees were rare at that time there is not any fossil of actual bees today, which preserved since 200 million years ago.
Secondly, the reading asserts that there were no flowering plants at that time. The professor believes this reason is not plausible because the bees of that time were not necessarily related to flowering plants closely. She adds more details by saying that ancient bees might feed on some other plants like Ferns and Pont trees.
Lastly, while the reading refers to lack of some details in the structure of the fossils, the professor makes a counterargument by pointing that there are some chemicals which are known as evidence for bees' nests. She describes that this distinct material which were used for water proofing of nests is the same as the resemble material for the same purpose in the modern nests.
The article and the lecture are both discussing about the validity of a fossils which supposed to be the remains of bee nests. The article states that the possibility of this theory is skeptical and gives three reasons for support. The lecturer dismisses all reasons by saying that perfectly possibility of this fossils is not skeptical, and the arguments of reading is not convincing.
First of all, refers to lack of any actual bees' fossils, and makes doubt for the theory. The professor opposes this point by saying that lack of bees' fossils do not mean that there were not any bee 200 million years ago. She explains that bees could only preserve in resin of specific tree, a sticky material in the body of the tree. As those trees were rare at that time there is not any fossil of actual bees today, which preserved since 200 million years ago.
Secondly, the reading asserts that there were no flowering plants at that time. The professor believes this reason is not plausible because the bees of that time were not necessarily related to flowering plants closely. She adds more details by saying that ancient bees might feed on some other plants like Ferns and Pont trees.
Lastly, while the reading refers to lack of some details in the structure of the fossils, the professor makes a counterargument by pointing that there are some chemicals which are known as evidence for bees' nests. She describes that this distinct material which were used for water proofing of nests is the same as the resemble material for the same purpose in the modern nests.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 71, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a fossil' or simply 'fossils'?
Suggestion: a fossil; fossils
...e both discussing about the validity of a fossils which supposed to be the remains of bee...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 233, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...al and gives three reasons for support. The lecturer dismisses all reasons by sayin...
^^^
Line 1, column 308, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...by saying that perfectly possibility of this fossils is not skeptical, and the argum...
^^^^
Line 7, column 316, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
... water proofing of nests is the same as the resemble material for the same purpose in the mo...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['first', 'if', 'lastly', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'while', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.26116838488 0.261695866417 100% => OK
Verbs: 0.151202749141 0.158904122519 95% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0515463917526 0.0723426182421 71% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0515463917526 0.0435111971325 118% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0103092783505 0.0277247811725 37% => OK
Prepositions: 0.158075601375 0.128828473217 123% => OK
Participles: 0.0343642611684 0.0370669169778 93% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.35222414519 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0137457044674 0.0208969081088 66% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.00154638098197 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.161512027491 0.128158765124 126% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.00687285223368 0.0158828679856 43% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0137457044674 0.0114777025283 120% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1567.0 1645.83664459 95% => OK
No of words: 271.0 271.125827815 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.78228782288 6.08160592843 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05734859645 4.04852973271 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.317343173432 0.374372842146 85% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.239852398524 0.287516216867 83% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.151291512915 0.187439937562 81% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0811808118081 0.113142543107 72% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.35222414519 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 131.0 145.348785872 90% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.483394833948 0.539623497131 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 45.9176031675 53.8517498576 85% => OK
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0529801325 92% => OK
Sentence length: 22.5833333333 21.7502111507 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.9415186021 49.3711431718 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.583333333 132.220823453 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5833333333 21.7502111507 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.666666666667 0.878197800319 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.39072847682 118% => OK
Readability: 46.5685731857 50.5018328374 92% => OK
Elegance: 2.12903225806 1.90840788429 112% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.692859450273 0.549887131256 126% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.192139961593 0.142949733639 134% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0968843176876 0.0787303798458 123% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.665059433788 0.631733273073 105% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.104676715978 0.139662658121 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.351094907485 0.266732575781 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.232638418276 0.103435571967 225% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.3567019403 0.414875509568 86% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0453258823602 0.0530846634433 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.501838571029 0.40443939384 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.253249654286 0.0528353158467 479% => Less connections among paragraphs
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.26048565121 117% => OK
Positive topic words: 3.0 3.49668874172 86% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 3.62251655629 83% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 3.1766004415 157% => OK
Total topic words: 11.0 10.2958057395 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.