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.
In the given set of materials, there is some discrepancy between the views of the author and those of the lecturer on the issue of whether bees existed on Earth 200 million years ago. With three cogent explanations, the lecturer raises the opposition to the author's arguments.
First, the lecturer opposes the authors conjecture that bees did not exist 200 million years ago since no fossil remains prove their existence. To be more specific, she claims that this is not sufficient to exclude the possibility of bees' existence because the production of fossils relies on a special type of tree sap. It is proved that trees producing this kind of liquid were very rare, and they did not exist until some 100 million years ago. Thus, bees might have existed 200 years ago, and there were simply no methods to preserve their bodies.
Second, the lecturer refutes the author's idea that since flowers, on which the bees feed, first appeared on Earth 125 million years ago, it would not be likely that bees existed before this date. It is true that today, bees feed on flowers, but it is also probable that before the flowers appeared, the bees fed on non-flowering plants, such as pine trees. And later, as flowers began to grow on Earth, bees shifted their diet and this appetite for flowers remained stable until now. The lecturer holds the opinion that the fact that bees feed on flowers today does not mean that they fed on flowers in the past.
Third, the lecturer goes on to expound that the author's claim concerning the fossilized structures is flawed. She explains that there is chemical evidence to prove that the fossils structures resemble the nest of modern bees. Scientists found some waterproofing substance inside the fossil structures, which is reported to be the same waterproof material used by today's bees to build their nests. This explanation strongly opposes the argument of the author who believes that the fossil structures do not belong to bees, since these structures lack some details of bees' nests, including the caps.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...position to the authors arguments. First, the lecturer opposes the authors ...
^^
Line 5, column 554, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ply no methods to preserve their bodies. Second, the lecturer refutes the authors...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 34, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... Second, the lecturer refutes the authors idea that since flowers, on which the b...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 619, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t they fed on flowers in the past. Third, the lecturer goes on to expound t...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, second, so, third, thus, kind of, such as, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 47.0 30.3222958057 155% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1737.0 1373.03311258 127% => OK
No of words: 347.0 270.72406181 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00576368876 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31600926901 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54297906386 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 145.348785872 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.515850144092 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 504.0 419.366225166 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 21.2450331126 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 58.7056570244 49.2860985944 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.75 110.228320801 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.9166666667 21.698381199 133% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.25 7.06452816374 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.385898593356 0.272083759551 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.144588815243 0.0996497079465 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0813499474596 0.0662205650399 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.224532972382 0.162205337803 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0795607567329 0.0443174109184 180% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 13.3589403974 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.52 53.8541721854 96% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.37 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.