Both the lecture and the reading deal about the R. robustus and its hunting potential. While the author states that this dinosaur must have been a scavenger, the professor refutes this position and evinces that it was a hunter.
Firstly, the passage states that the size of R. robustus was like a domestic cat, smaller than the psittacosaur, which clearly shows that R. robustus was not an active hunter but a scavenger which fed on dinosaur eggs. However, the lecturer mentions that the fossil found in the stomach could have been a baby dinosaur, demonstrating that R. robustus must have been able to hunt smaller preys.
Secondly, the article presents that the legs or R.robustus appeared to be more suited for scavenging than hunting because they were short and side-positioned, which may not have allowed them to be as fast as other dinosaurs. Opposing this argument, the lecturer gives the example of the Tasmanian Devil that has a similar leg structure but can move at 15 km/h, being an effective predator.
Finally, in the reading it was argued that the bones of a chased animal should have teeth marks, which did not appear in the psittacosaur fossil. The lecturer opposes to it by saying that R. robustus didn’t use its back teeth for chewing.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 228, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ger which fed on dinosaur eggs. However, the lecturer mentions that the fossil fo...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, however, may, second, secondly, so, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 15.0 30.3222958057 49% => More preposition wanted.
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: 1054.0 1373.03311258 77% => OK
No of words: 214.0 270.72406181 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.92523364486 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.82475343497 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61585429354 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 128.0 145.348785872 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.598130841121 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 315.0 419.366225166 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 56.4001972383 49.2860985944 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.0769230769 110.228320801 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4615384615 21.698381199 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.46153846154 7.06452816374 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => 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: 0.125439627397 0.272083759551 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0469673839433 0.0996497079465 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0865989498947 0.0662205650399 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.080090149657 0.162205337803 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0815843997791 0.0443174109184 184% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.0 13.3589403974 75% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.02 12.2367328918 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.