dinosaurs
The lecture, as well as the reading, are about an old dinosaur called R. robustus and its eating habits. The reading states that this dinosaur was not a scavenger mammal, as some researchers have assumed. In contrast to the reading, the professor suggests that the reading does not consider some important points about its features and habits. The lecturer supports her argument by providing three reasons.
First of all, the reading claims that the R. robustus was a small mammal that could not have eaten a big dinosaur as the Psittacosaur. However, the professor refutes this point. She says that it is clear that the R. robusts did not eat a huge dinosaur, but they could have eaten babies dinosaur. She mentions that the R.robusts was two sizes bigger than babbies dinosaur, so it was possible that they could have eaten it.
Second, according to the reading, the R.robustus have small legs. Therefore they look like a scavenger than a hunter. Nevertheless, the lecturer disputes this argument. She argues that there are modern-hunter animals that have small legs as well; it is called the Tasmanian devil. She points out that the Tasmanian devil can reach 15 km/hour; hence it is an animal that can chase after prey actively and successfully.
Finally, the reading states that this dinosaur did not leave evidence on the bones like some mark when they ate their prey. Nonetheless, the lecturer believes that this mammal has powerful jaws, and they swallowed its prey. She thinks that is the main reason why researchers did not find marks in bones’ prey.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 408, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...er argument by providing three reasons. First of all, the reading claims that th...
^^^^
Line 5, column 67, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...eading, the R.robustus have small legs. Therefore they look like a scavenger than a hunte...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, hence, however, look, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, so, therefore, well, in contrast, as well as, first of all, in contrast to
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 : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 22.412803532 178% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 13.0 30.3222958057 43% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1311.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 263.0 270.72406181 97% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98479087452 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02706775958 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52668391764 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 140.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.532319391635 0.540411800872 99% => OK
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: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.6820723006 49.2860985944 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 69.0 110.228320801 63% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.8421052632 21.698381199 64% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06452816374 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
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: 0.2366852781 0.272083759551 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0776196527234 0.0996497079465 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.124542318392 0.0662205650399 188% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148532947039 0.162205337803 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.114233989767 0.0443174109184 258% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.9 13.3589403974 67% => 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: 11.01 12.2367328918 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.58 8.42419426049 90% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
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?
---------------------
Rates: 65.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.5 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.