At the end of the Triassic period 200 million years ago, there was a mass-extinction event that caused the extinction of more than half of all living species. It was this extinction event that allowed dinosaurs to become the dominant species for the next 145 million years. We do not know exactly what happened that eliminated so many species in a relatively short period of time, but there are several possible explanations.
One theory involves the decline of sea levels. Near the end of the Triassic period, sea levels were fluctuating. When sea levels fall, the habitats for ocean populations that live in the shallows and land species that live on the coast are destroyed. The destruction of coastal and shallow-ocean species would have had a profound effect on food chains worldwide, leading to mass extinctions.
Another theory involves massive climate cooling. The end of the Triassic period was marked by widespread volcanic activity. The volcanoes released large amounts of sulfur dioxide (SO2). A rise in atmospheric SO2 is known to cause a lowering in global temperatures. Such climate change could have devastated many species and led to the extinctions.
The third theory involves an asteroid strike. Asteroids (objects from outer space) occasionally collide with Earth. When an asteroid hits Earth’s surface, it often displaces large amounts of soil and crushed rock, leaving behind a depression, or crater. The displaced debris is thrown up into the atmosphere where it can block out sunlight for many months or even a few years. A sufficiently massive asteroid impact at the end of the Triassic period may have blocked sunlight long enough for most plants to die and many animal species to then starve.
The reading and lecture are both about the appraising possible causes for extinction which was related to the Triassic period, around 200 million years ago. Whereas the author of the reading passage mentions three reasons which include a decline of sea levels, huge climate cooling, and steroid strike, the lecturer repudiates them. Indeed, the lecturer casts doubts on the three reasons in the reading passage by challenging them.
To begin with, even though the author holds that decline of the sea levels in the Triassic period caused destruction of coastal and shallow-ocean species’ habitats, which influenced on food chains dramatically and led to mass extinction, the lecturer rebuffs this idea. She says that this process had been done gradually in millions of years. As well as, it provided adaptation for the various animals or plants. Thus, the author’s idea seems illogical and problematic.
Secondly, in the reading passage the author claims that colossal climate cooling due to the great amounts of sulfur dioxide (SO2) concentration could cause the mass extinction; however, the lecturer challenges this opinion. The lecturer posits that this fluctuation in SO2 concentration was not a permanent condition. In fact, there were not adequate volcanoes eruption to increase such a significant, permanent concentration of SO2. Furthermore, the combination of SO2 with water gas could engender acid rain, nevertheless, this process had not a great impression on mass extinction. Therefore, this idea is challenged by the lecturer.
Last but not least, the author affirms that asteroid strike is a possible reason for the extinction. If an asteroid had collided to the earth, it would have created big crater as well as massive debris which blocked sunlight long enough. As a consequence, it caused many plants to die and disrupted the food chain. However, according to the lecturer, there is not any evidence showing such collision. The biggest one was related to around 200 million years ago. Thus, this idea is problematic.
In conclusion, although the author buttresses his or her opinions about the Triassic Extinction’s reasons, the three main reasons in the reading passage are effectively challenged by the lecturer.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 350, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'volcanoes'' or 'volcano's'?
Suggestion: volcanoes'; volcano's
...ition. In fact, there were not adequate volcanoes eruption to increase such a significant...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, well, whereas, in conclusion, in fact, as well as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 5.01324503311 339% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1902.0 1373.03311258 139% => OK
No of words: 351.0 270.72406181 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.4188034188 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32839392791 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94175513318 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 145.348785872 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.547008547009 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 561.6 419.366225166 134% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 62.9356176323 49.2860985944 128% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.105263158 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4736842105 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.78947368421 7.06452816374 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.181215862099 0.272083759551 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0566310212485 0.0996497079465 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0768959525351 0.0662205650399 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0997431795969 0.162205337803 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0258099418932 0.0443174109184 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.2367328918 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.03 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 63.6247240618 157% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.