Did bees a type of insect exist on Earth as early as 200 million years ago? Such a theory is supported by the discovery of very old fossil structures that resemble bee nests. The structures have been found inside 200-million-year-old fossilized trees in the state of Arizona in the southwestern United States. However, many skeptics doubt that the structures were created by bees. The skeptics support their view with several arguments.
No Fossils of Actual Bees
First, no fossil remains of actual bees have ever been found that date to 200 million years ago. The earliest preserved body of a bee is 100 million years old—only half as old as the fossilized structures discovered in Arizona.
Absence of Flowering Plants
A second reason to doubt that bees existed 200 million years ago is the absence of flowering plants in that period. Today's bees feed almost exclusively on the flowers of flowering plants; in fact, bees and flowering plants have evolved a close, mutually dependent biological relationship. Flowering plants, however, first appeared on Earth 125 million years ago. Given the bees' close association with flowering plants, it is unlikely bees could have existed before that time.
Structures Lack Some Details
Third, while the fossilized structures found in Arizona are somewhat similar to nest chambers made by modern bees, they lack some of the finer details of bees' nests. For example, chambers of modern bee nests are closed by caps that have a spiral pattern, but the fossilized chambers lack such caps. That suggests the fossilized structures were made by other insects, such as wood-boring beetles.
The reading passage and the lecture talk about the existence of bee 200 million years ago. Despite that, the lecturer in the listening states that the existence of bee is possible and the arguments in the reading is not convincing. She cast doubts on every single points the reading makes and provide specific details to support her ideas.
To begin with, the reading passage suggests that there's no fossil of bee dated to 200 millions years ago. However, the professors thinks it is because the fossil of bee could not be well-preserved that time. The fossil of bee requires special liquids from the tree that was not common before. As a result, there were bees but not able to be preserved.
Secondly, about the absence of flowering plants, the writer indicates that without the flowers, no bees can exist whereas the speaker holds the view that early bee can feed other resources such as pine tree. They may evolve to have close relationship with flowers later time and then adapt to the stable connection ever since. It is clear that the lecturers disproves its counterpart in the reading.
Over and above that, the reading claims the fossilized structure found lacks some characteristics. The lecturer, on the other hand, argues that the chemical elements analyzed from the fossil shows the same material used by modern bees. Therefore, she disagrees with the opinion that the fossilized structure were made by other insects.
To sum up, the author and the professor have conflicting views on this topic.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 171, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ning states that the existence of bee is possible and the arguments in the readin...
^^
Line 3, column 50, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: there's
...with, the reading passage suggests that theres no fossil of bee dated to 200 millions ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, well, whereas, such as, as a result, to begin with, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1268.0 1373.03311258 92% => OK
No of words: 254.0 270.72406181 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.99212598425 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99216450694 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50568205423 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.602362204724 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 382.5 419.366225166 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.5017245916 49.2860985944 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.5714285714 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1428571429 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.1428571429 7.06452816374 144% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.313595286214 0.272083759551 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0986610321786 0.0996497079465 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0859886914272 0.0662205650399 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142260250358 0.162205337803 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0823505534312 0.0443174109184 186% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 13.3589403974 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.37 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.76 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.