In this set of materials, the reading passage says that R. robustus was not a hunter and provides three reasons to support this. The lecture disagrees with this. The professor refutes each reason on the reading.
First of all, the reading claims that because of they were small they could not hunter another dinosaur. The professor opposes this by saying this. R robustus hunted smaller dinosaurs, for example, psittacosaurs babies or another small species.
Second, the writer says that their legs appear more suited for scavenging than hunting. The lecture gave another point of view about their legs. The professor said an example about a modern mammal, the tazmania, which is very similar to the R. robustus. Both are fast and small and Tasmania is a good predator nowadays and these similarities support the idea that they were a predator as well.
Third, the reading passage says that because of the bones inside the stomach provide no evidence to support the idea about they were a predator. On the other hand, the professor gave the explanation about this. He told that they had powerful jaws and they did not need to use teeth. Actually, they simply swallowed in big pieces or the entire animal.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...or refutes each reason on the reading. First of all, the reading claims that be...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 44, Rule ID: BECAUSE_OF_I[1]
Message: Probable usage error. Use 'because they' instead.
Suggestion: because they
... First of all, the reading claims that because of they were small they could not hunter anothe...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...saurs babies or another small species. Second, the writer says that their legs ...
^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...dea that they were a predator as well. Third, the reading passage says that bec...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, first, second, so, third, well, for example, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 20.0 30.3222958057 66% => 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: 1006.0 1373.03311258 73% => OK
No of words: 204.0 270.72406181 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.93137254902 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.77926670891 4.04702891845 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.35940696581 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 120.0 145.348785872 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.588235294118 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 303.3 419.366225166 72% => 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: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.7403353619 49.2860985944 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 67.0666666667 110.228320801 61% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.6 21.698381199 63% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.73333333333 7.06452816374 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.27373068433 211% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0404431732845 0.272083759551 15% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0124540666035 0.0996497079465 12% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0465988503023 0.0662205650399 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0294399023 0.162205337803 18% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0509914065535 0.0443174109184 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.6 13.3589403974 64% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 66.74 53.8541721854 124% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 11.0289183223 65% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.72 12.2367328918 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.84 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 46.0 63.6247240618 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 4.5 10.7273730684 42% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.2 10.498013245 69% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.