Did Bees exist 200 million years ago?
The reading and the lecture are both about bees' existence 200 million years ago. The author of the reading believes that many skeptics counter such possibility; however, the speaker effectively casts doubt on each and every argument presented by the author. The speaker asserts that counterarguments by those skeptics are not convincing, and the existence of bees was perfectly possible then.
To begin with, the author claims that the earliest preserved evidence of fossilized bees is dated back to 100 million years ago. However, the lecturer presents a hole in this claim by highlighting the fact that the process of preserving fossils needs a resin-based substance which probably were rare in that time. Only after when trees were able to produce those resins, the fossils could be preserved in detail.
Secondly, the essayist argues that absence of flowering plant might play a key role in the absence of bees in that time, citing the fact that those plants and bees are biologically interconnected. On the contrary, the speaker diverges from this point of view, pointing out that with the absence of those flowering plants, bees probably fed on pine, fern, and other plants. She goes on by saying that after the evolution were taken place in flowering plants, then bees started to evolve, and fed on them.
Finally, according to the author, skeptics cites the lack of detail as a reinforcement for their theory, especially the lack of caps in chambers. On the other hand, the speaker rejects this argument by saying that a chemical study of fossils proves otherwise. In light of this evidence, she puts forward the idea that the ancestors of modern bees were using special waterproof substance in their chambers like modern-day bees.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 259, 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.
...every argument presented by the author. The speaker asserts that counterarguments b...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, however, second, secondly, then, on the contrary, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 30.3222958057 152% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 5.01324503311 259% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1464.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 287.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10104529617 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11595363751 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63996095148 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550522648084 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 435.6 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.7589916425 49.2860985944 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.0 110.228320801 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9166666667 21.698381199 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.58333333333 7.06452816374 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.223268345343 0.272083759551 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.096489698447 0.0996497079465 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.159053923084 0.0662205650399 240% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130606904337 0.162205337803 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.101034309889 0.0443174109184 228% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.57 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.