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 argues that many skeptics doubt that the old fossil structures were created by bees with several arguments, while the professor asserts that those reasons are not convincing for the following reasons.
To begin with, the article states that no fossil remains of actual bees have ever been found that date to 200 million years ago. However, the professor maintains that maybe the reason why there are no fossil remains of actual bees is that bees can not be preserved at that time. The material of fossil is produced by specific trees. It is possible that this kind of trees are rare in 200 million years ago. Therefore, there is no fossil remains but did have actual bees.
Secondly, the article states that flowering plants have evolved a mutually dependent biological relationship with bees nowadays, but there is the absence of flowering plants in 200 million years ago. Nevertheless, the professor asserts that it is possible that early bees were feed on non-flowering plants, such as pine trees. Moreover, there may be a revolution of bees making them start to feed on the flowers.
Last but not least, the article maintains that the fossilized structures lack some of the finer details of bee's nests made by modern bees. However, the professor argues that there is chemical evidence can prove the statement which the article gives is wrong. It is that the nests made by modern bees have the same waterproofing technology as the fossilized structures have while chemical analysis.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 79, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...ins that the fossilized structures lack some of the finer details of bees nests made by mod...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 374, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'whiled'.
Suggestion: whiled
...ology as the fossilized structures have while chemical analysis.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, while, kind of, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1270.0 1373.03311258 92% => OK
No of words: 251.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.05976095618 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98032404683 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52553820025 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 122.0 145.348785872 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.486055776892 0.540411800872 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 383.4 419.366225166 91% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.978098847 49.2860985944 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.833333333 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9166666667 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.83333333333 7.06452816374 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 4.33554083885 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.37644766571 0.272083759551 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.136309115383 0.0996497079465 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0844754175796 0.0662205650399 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.201952067614 0.162205337803 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0765789277515 0.0443174109184 173% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.71 8.42419426049 92% => OK
difficult_words: 49.0 63.6247240618 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.0 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.