The reading passage and the lecture talk about the existence of bees 200 million years ago. Despite that, the lecturer in the listening states that the existence of bees is possible and the arguments in the reading are not convincing. She cast doubts on every single point the reading makes and provides specific details to support her ideas.
To begin with, the reading passage suggests that there's no fossil of bees dated 200 million years ago. However, the professor thinks it is because the fossil of bees could not be well-preserved at 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 bees can feed other resources such as pine trees. They may evolve to have a close relationship with flowers later time and then adapt to the stable connection ever since. It is clear that the lecturer 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 element analyzed from the fossil shows the same material used by modern bees. Therefore, she disagrees with the opinion that the fossilized structures were made by other insects.
To sum up, the author and the professor have conflicting views on this topic.
Grammar and spelling errors:
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 bees dated 200 million yea...
^^^^^^
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: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1273.0 1373.03311258 93% => OK
No of words: 255.0 270.72406181 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.99215686275 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99608801488 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4881912572 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.6 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 384.3 419.366225166 92% => 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: 35.9841234832 49.2860985944 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.9285714286 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2142857143 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.1428571429 7.06452816374 144% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 0.307820789551 0.272083759551 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0971441882706 0.0996497079465 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0857946728999 0.0662205650399 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.139286529803 0.162205337803 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0828111165292 0.0443174109184 187% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => 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: 11.66 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => 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: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.