A fossil skeleton of a dinosaur called Sinosauropteryx, preserved in volcanic ash, was discovered in Liaoning, China, in 1996. Interestingly, the fossil included a pattern of fine lines surrounding the skeletal bones. Some paleontologists interpret the lines as evidence that Sinosauropteryx had feathers. However, critics have opposed the idea that Sinosauropteryx was a feathered dinosaur, citing several reasons.
First, the critics points out that the fine lines may not even represent functional structures of a living dinosaur, but rather structures that were formed after the animal’s death. After the animal died and was buried in volcanic ash, its skin may have decomposed into fibers. The skin fibers then became preserved as lines in the fossil; the lines were misinterpreted as evidence of feathers.
Second, even if the fine lines are remains of real structures of a Sinosauropteryx, scientists cannot tell with certainty what part of the dinosaur’s anatomy the structures were. Many dinosaurs had frills, ornamental fan-shaped structures growing out of some parts of their bodies. Some of the critics argue that the lines surrounding the skeleton are much more likely to be fossilized remains of frills than remains of feathers.
A third objection is based on the fact that the usual functions of feathers are to help animals fly or regulate their internal temperature. However, the structures represented by the lines in the Sinosauropteryx fossil were mostly located along the backbone and the tail of the animal. This would have made the structures quite useless for flight and of very limited use in thermoregulation. This suggests that the lines do not represent feathers.
The reading claims that the pattern of fine lines surrounding the skeletal bones do not mean that Sinosauropteryx was a feathered dinosaur. However the lecturer finds all the ideas dubious and presents some evidence to refute them all.
The author argues that after the skin is decomposed into fibers, they became preserved as lines in the fossil. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that these kinds of fine lines are not found in other fossils on the same site. Moreover the decomposition of skin is well-preserved and beautifully presents the skin.
Furthermore, the reading passage holds the view that there is more possibility that the lines represent fossilized remains of frills than the remains of feathers. On the contrary, the professor underlines the fact that there is chemical difference between frills and feathers. Since there is kind of protein called beta carraton which is only found in feathers and the fossils contain this protein.
Finally, the reading asserts that the lines in the fossil are located along the backbone and the tail of the animal, so, the structures cannot be used for flight or thermoregulation as these are functions of feathers. In contrast, the speaker dismisses this issue due to the fact that feathers have other functions. A case in point can be birds that use their feathers for displaying and attracting opposite sex for mating. Since the lines in the fossils are colourful (white and orange), it can be inferred that the feathers were used for displaying.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 141, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...nosauropteryx was a feathered dinosaur. However the lecturer finds all the ideas dubiou...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 236, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Moreover,
...ound in other fossils on the same site. Moreover the decomposition of skin is well-prese...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, finally, furthermore, however, if, moreover, so, well, in contrast, kind of, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1273.0 1373.03311258 93% => OK
No of words: 249.0 270.72406181 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.1124497992 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.97237131171 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74572530224 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 140.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.562248995984 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 387.0 419.366225166 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.9959147873 49.2860985944 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.083333333 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.75 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.66666666667 7.06452816374 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.203090624194 0.272083759551 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.071702566452 0.0996497079465 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0704776759543 0.0662205650399 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123092734611 0.162205337803 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0505901649478 0.0443174109184 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.