The reading and the lecture are both about why animals that existed in the “early earth” period were larger than animals today. The author of the reading presents three possible explanations for this phenomenon. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article. She thinks that none of the theories are supported by facts or evidence.
First of all, the author claims that animals were larger because the early earth had a greater supply of oxygen. He notes that high oxygen levels stimulate growth in certain species. This point is challenged by the lecturer. She says that the atmosphere of the early earth was full of poisonous gasses which made it difficult for animals to breathe. She points out that oxygen levels were not higher than they are today.
Secondly, the author states that animals that existed in the early earth period grew large as a result of having access to abundant plant life to feed on. He argues that animals grew large because they consumed high levels of nutrients and that they passed down their size to succeeding generations. This argument is rebutted by the lecturer. She suggests that plant life was in fact abundant, but that it was mostly low in nutrients. She notes that this is because plants rely on carbon dioxide to grow strong, but they did not have much carbon dioxide during the period.
Finally, the author mentions that warm climates caused animals in this period to grow large. He is of the opinion that because they did not have to use energy to stay warm, they were able to channel it into growing larger bodies. The lecturer, on the other hand, feels that in today’s era warm climates are mostly known for having small animals. She puts forth the idea that massive bodies are disadvantageous in warm climates.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The reading and the lecture are both abo...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 235, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ible explanations for this phenomenon. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made...
^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...es are supported by facts or evidence. First of all, the author claims that ani...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s were not higher than they are today. Secondly, the author states that animals...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 529, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ly on carbon dioxide to grow strong, but they did not have much carbon dioxide du...
^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...much carbon dioxide during the period. Finally, the author mentions that warm c...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, second, secondly, so, in fact, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 22.412803532 183% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
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: 1482.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 306.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.8431372549 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18244613648 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.33646189995 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.513071895425 0.540411800872 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 453.6 419.366225166 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 3.25607064018 369% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.9435611971 49.2860985944 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.3333333333 110.228320801 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.55555555556 7.06452816374 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
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: 0.351143303077 0.272083759551 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.103416992407 0.0996497079465 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0691721395272 0.0662205650399 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.217659551496 0.162205337803 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0486708017229 0.0443174109184 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.9 13.3589403974 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.5 12.2367328918 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => 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.