Endotherms are animals such as modern birds and mammals that keep their body temperatures constant. For instance, humans are endotherms and maintain an internal temperature of 37°C, no matter whether the environment is warm or cold.
Because dinosaurs were reptiles, and modern reptiles are not endotherms, it was long assumed that dinosaurs were not endotherms. However, dinosaurs differ in many ways from modern reptiles, and there is now considerable evidence that dinosaurs were, in fact, endotherms.
Polar dinosaurs
One reason for believing that dinosaurs were endotherms is that dinosaur fossils have been discovered in Polar Regions. Only animals that can maintain a temperature well above that of the surrounding environment could be active in such cold climates.
Leg position and movement
There is a connection between endothermy and the position and movement of the legs. The physiology of endothermy allows sustained physical activity, such as running. But running is efficient only if an animal's legs are positioned underneath its body, not at the body's side, as they are for crocodiles and many lizards. The legs of all modern endotherms are underneath the body, and so were the legs of dinosaurs. This strongly suggests that dinosaurs were endotherms.
Haversian canals
There is also a connection between endothermy and bone structure. The bones of endotherms usually include structures called Haversian canals. These canals house nerves and blood vessels that allow the living animal to grow quickly, and rapid body growth is, in fact, a characteristic of endothermy. The presence of Haversian canals in bone is a strong indicator that the animal is an endotherm, and fossilized bones of dinosaurs are usually dense with Haversian canals.
The reading asserts that there are several strong evidances to affirm dinosaurs were endoterm, and they were able to keep their bodies warm like mammals and birds. The lectuere repudiates the idea of the writer by explaining that those reasons are not convincing and none of them are proved by scientists.
First, the professor avers that at dinosaurs era the polar regions were warmer then they are now. Therefore, it is more adaptable for dinosaurs to live in that climate in which they could hybernate in the specific cold winter months or migrate to warmer places to tolerate that place. With this justificaction, the lecturer directly refutes the writer's evidance of fossils of dinosaurs as a firm evidance of being warm-blood and endoterm of dinosaurs.
Second, the lecturer points out that the position of leg in dinosaurs underneath of their bodies does not necessarily prove their endotermic features. It does not infer that they used their legs just to run and using a lot of energy. As she mentions, the body anatomical position of dinosaurs provided them with a base to stand on that and grow larger and larger, which brought many other benefits for them. Consequently, it is not a justifiable evidance to prove the endotermic ability of dinosaurs, the professor affirms and rebuts the writer's idea by this claim.
Third, the speaker in the lecture admits that dinosaurs fossils show the haversian canals, but they have some growth ring in their bons's fossil which means that they experienced multiple fast and slow growth periods. Slow-growth perioids which happened in cold weather mionths prove that they were not able to keep their body tempreature constant. She adds that this growth rings in bone have not seen in other endoterm animals. Hence, the professor firmly rejects this reasoning of the writer which haversian canals prove the endotermic feature of dinosaurs.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...one of them are proved by scientists. First, the professor avers that at dinos...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... warm-blood and endoterm of dinosaurs. Second, the lecturer points out that the...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 543, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...s, the professor affirms and rebuts the writers idea by this claim. Third, the ...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rebuts the writers idea by this claim. Third, the speaker in the lecture admits...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, hence, if, second, so, then, therefore, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 22.412803532 170% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1580.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 310.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09677419355 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57916086346 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.535483870968 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 482.4 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => 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: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.6193684736 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.538461538 110.228320801 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8461538462 21.698381199 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.46153846154 7.06452816374 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.13338151869 0.272083759551 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0524913684831 0.0996497079465 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0551704958091 0.0662205650399 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0933633233286 0.162205337803 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0263203543538 0.0443174109184 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.