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 and listening passages discuss whether the bees existed on Earth as early as 200 million years ago or not. The author proposes three theories to support the idea that they could not live in 200 million years ago. However, the speaker holds these arguments questionable.
First of all, the article claims that no fossil has ever been found. Nevertheless, the lecture points out that bees might exist in 200 million years ago, but only not be able to keep. Bees could only be well preserved in some kind of liquid of trees. Since there were basically no trees 200 million years ago, it is impossible for the bees to be preserved.
Second, the writer says flowering plants did not appear in so early past to feed by bees. On the other hand, the lecturer argues that although bees have no flowering plants to provide the food, they could forage non-flowering plants as the food. For example, ferns and pine trees are the good food's source to supply the nutrition to bees. Gradually, when flowering plants emerge to the world, bees evolve to eat the nectar.
Furthermore, the author states that the fossilized structure of the nest lack some of the finer features compared to modern bees. However, the speaker contends that there is a specific chemical material which used to prevent the water by modern bees are totally the same with the older bees. Consequently, the evidence shows that the old and contemporary bees have many similar places, which could seem as the same species.
To sum up, all the arguments mentioned in the reading passage are not plausible according to the speaker.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 79, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...e fossilized structure of the nest lack some of the finer features compared to modern bees....
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, furthermore, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, well, for example, kind of, first of all, to sum up, 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: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 11.0 22.412803532 49% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1334.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 275.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 4.85090909091 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07223819929 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4024120111 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.574545454545 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 394.2 419.366225166 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.7706790875 49.2860985944 60% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.9333333333 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3333333333 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.86666666667 7.06452816374 140% => 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 : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.351883344138 0.272083759551 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.105429171711 0.0996497079465 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0978188143679 0.0662205650399 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.162276814125 0.162205337803 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.126412287472 0.0443174109184 285% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.6 13.3589403974 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 70.13 53.8541721854 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.9 11.0289183223 72% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.85 12.2367328918 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.