Comprehensive
The reading passage explores the issue of the whether Argentavis could fly. The professor’s lecture deals with the same project. However, he believes that this kind of birds is probable to fly, which contradicts what the reading passage states. And in the lecture, the professor uses three specific points to embrace his idea.
Firstly, even though the reading passage suggests that the bird’s seven meters’ wings could hit the ground when it lifts off. The professor argues in the lecture that the bird could lift off in other position instead of standing. This is because it could stretch its wings and down its heels to catch winds, and its strong and large feet make it run, which means its wingspan does not prevent it from flying.
Moreover, contrary to the statement in the reading that the bird does not have sufficient muscles to keep its body in the sky, the professor contends that this bird could stay in the sky without moving its wings. Then he supports his point with the fact that eagles and some other giant birds can fly in the air by the support of wings for hours without moving its wings.
Finally, the professor asserts that the ability to fly is very useful for Argentavis, whereas the author of the reading claims flying has no advantage for this bird. The professor proves that his claim is indefensible by pointing out that for sky rangers like Argentavis, they feed on dead bodies, so they need to search for large areas to find sufficient food by flying, meaning Argentavis relies on flying ability to search for food.
In conclusion, the professor clearly identifies the weakness in the reading passage and convincingly shows that the central argument in the reading in incorrect.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 316, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d down its heels to catch winds, and its strong and large feet make it run, which...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, however, if, moreover, so, then, whereas, as to, in conclusion, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 10.4613686534 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1437.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 293.0 270.72406181 108% => OK
Chars per words: 4.90443686007 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13729897018 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.37649048398 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.535836177474 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 401.4 419.366225166 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.101783673 49.2860985944 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.75 110.228320801 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4166666667 21.698381199 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06452816374 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => 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: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 64.04 53.8541721854 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.44 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.84 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.