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 (S02). A rise in atmospheric S02 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 is about the hypothesis regarding the destruction of half of all living species at the end of Triassic period. It provides three supporting evidence in order to strengthen its claim. However, the professor says, none of the theory is convincing to give credit. She refutes each of the passage reason.
First, the article asserts that the fall of sea surface causes the downing the living species. But, the lecturer denies this idea. In addition she describes, it was possible for scientist to agree with the idea of fluctuating sea level but there was also shallow and coastal ocean species ability to adapt with the ocean level. Furthermore, the change was happened quite routinely that was not occurred in a sudden moment.
Second, the reading states that the huge downgrading the climate temperature was responsible for species disappearance. However, the professor refutes this claim. Apart from that, she explains, the presence of SO2 was not the reason for climate cooling because they are still present in our atmosphere. Moreover, the volcanic SO2 was not causes the cold effect as they stayed long time in the air and if they were run down to the ground then it caused the acid rain by reacting with water.
Third, the written excerpt claims that the asteroid attack was the reason for the living organism upheaval. The point is quite incoherent with the lecturer. Because, there was no asteroid crater was found on that site. In addition, if any asteroid crater was found it was 12 million years old that was the far more age than the extinction time. So, the idea of asteroid strike is incongruous.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 258, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'giving'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'convince' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: giving
... says, none of the theory is convincing to give credit. She refutes each of the passage...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 135, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[2]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: addition,
... But, the lecturer denies this idea. In addition she describes, it was possible for scie...
^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t was not occurred in a sudden moment. Second, the reading states that the huge...
^^^
Line 7, column 158, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Because” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... is quite incoherent with the lecturer. Because, there was no asteroid crater was found...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, regarding, second, so, still, then, third, apart from, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1359.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 274.0 270.72406181 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.9598540146 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0685311056 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51326334092 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.591240875912 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 410.4 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.8189347333 49.2860985944 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 79.9411764706 110.228320801 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.1176470588 21.698381199 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.05882352941 7.06452816374 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.288804805775 0.272083759551 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0758106452769 0.0996497079465 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.077865437738 0.0662205650399 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155040311698 0.162205337803 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0335988700507 0.0443174109184 76% => 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: 11.19 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.