Of course there are some negative consequences of selling fossils in the commercial market, but they have been greatly exaggerated. The benefits of commercial fossil trade greatly outweigh the disadvantages.
First of all, the public is likely to have greater exposure to fossils as a result of commercial fossil trade, not less exposure. Commercial fossil hunting makes a lot of fossils available for purchase, and as a result, even low-level public institutions like public schools and libraries can now routinely buy interesting fossils and display them for the public.
As for the idea that scientists will lose access to really important fossils, that’s not realistic either.
Before anyone can put a value on a fossil, it needs to be scientifically identified, right? Well, the only people who can identify fossils, who can really tell what a given fossil is or isn’t, are scientists, by performing detailed examinations and tests on the fossils themselves. So even if a fossil is destined to go to a private collector, it has to pass through the hands of scientific experts first. This way, the scientific community is not going to miss out on anything important that’s out there.
Finally, whatever damage commercial fossil collectors sometimes do, if it weren’t for them, many fossils would simply go undiscovered because there aren’t that many fossil collecting operations that are run by universities and other scientific institutions. Isn’t it better for science to at least have more fossils being found even if we don’t have all the scientific data we’d like to have about their location and surroundings than it is to have many fossils go completely undiscovered?
The passage conveys the broad claim that the private collecting of fossils have resulted in several unfavourable outcomes, as far as the scientific community and the general publica are concerned. In sharp contrast to this, the lecturer in the lecture claims that the advantages generated from the private collecting of fossils outweigh the disadvantages, and that the disadnavtages that are attributed to private fossil collecting are exagerated.
first, the lectuerer addresses the claim in the passage which suggest that the public misses out watching and examining the fossils due to private collecting. she counters this argument by saying that private collecting has allowed public institutions like schools to buy fossils and display them to the public. In this manner she invalidates the first point made in the passage.
Second, she rebuts the argument that scientists miss out on access to important fossils and thus miss out on crucial discoveries. she does so by pointing out the fact that even when private collecting of the fossil is done, the fossil goes through scientists for examination first. thus, she reveals the falsehood of the second point provided in the passage.
Third, the lecturer points out a major flaw in the line of argument in the final point of the passage. While she agrees that some form of dammage happens to fossils nearby when a certain fossil is unearthed, she stresses that unearthing of atleast that nature is a significant achievment when compared to not unearthing at all. she suggests that private collecting paves the way to unearthing to at least some extent, which should be appreciated rather than being critized.
In this manner the lecturer in this lecture rebuts the arguments provided in the article, and for that purpose provides counter arguments with justifications for each point provided in the passage.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: First
...ssil collecting are exagerated. first, the lectuerer addresses the claim in t...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 160, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: She
... the fossils due to private collecting. she counters this argument by saying that p...
^^^
Line 13, column 131, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: She
...d thus miss out on crucial discoveries. she does so by pointing out the fact that e...
^^^
Line 13, column 283, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Thus
...rough scientists for examination first. thus, she reveals the falsehood of the secon...
^^^^
Line 19, column 329, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: She
...when compared to not unearthing at all. she suggests that private collecting paves ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, second, so, third, thus, while, at least
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 46.0 30.3222958057 152% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1596.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 299.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33779264214 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78124966813 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 145.348785872 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494983277592 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 472.5 419.366225166 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.8678295048 49.2860985944 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.0 110.228320801 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.9166666667 21.698381199 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.66666666667 7.06452816374 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.132176234333 0.272083759551 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0552637199777 0.0996497079465 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0425131976289 0.0662205650399 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0773888531005 0.162205337803 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0448315662813 0.0443174109184 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 13.3589403974 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.99 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.7273730684 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
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.