How agnostids have lived
The material discusses how agnostids may have lived. While the reading looks at the topic from one perspective, the listening challenges certain points outlined in the reading passage.
First, the reading says that agnostides were free-swimimg predators. On the other hand, the listening opposes this and states that free-swimming predators should have large and well developed eyes; however, agnostides had very tiny and poorly developed eyes. The professor adds that some of them were completely blind. Furthermore, the lecturer mentions that if agnostides were predators, they should have other special sensory organs, but there is no evidence of that. As a result, the speaker states that all these reasons could rule out the possibility of agnostids to be predators.
Second, the writer posits that agnostids were seafloor dwellers. On the contrary, the lecturer refutes this and mentions that seafloor dwellers do not have the ability to move fast, so they occupy a small geographic area. Nevertheless, the professor mentions that agnostids were habitas a large geographic area; moreover, there were large distances between these areas. The lecturer points out that agnostids could move very fast, so there were not seafloor dwellers.
Third, the reading states that agnostids were parasites. Conversely, the professor contradicts this and mentions that parasites polpulations should not be very large, but they should keep on a certain limit. The speaker explains that if there are too many parasites, they could kill their hots. One the other hand, the lecturer adds that there were a large population of agnostids, so their great size of population rule out their possibility to be parasites.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 389, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tions that if agnostides were predators, they should have other special sensory o...
^^
Line 5, column 216, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... fast, so they occupy a small geographic area. Nevertheless, the professor mentio...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, first, furthermore, however, if, look, may, moreover, nevertheless, second, so, third, well, while, as a result, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 18.0 30.3222958057 59% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1443.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 265.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44528301887 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03470204552 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71276927208 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 131.0 145.348785872 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.494339622642 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 439.2 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.23620309051 182% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.6479562802 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.2 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6666666667 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.9333333333 7.06452816374 155% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.201823131493 0.272083759551 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0849437240868 0.0996497079465 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0992706915372 0.0662205650399 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133890871091 0.162205337803 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0656953971918 0.0443174109184 148% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 13.3589403974 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 53.8541721854 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.03 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.17 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.