The reading and the lecture are both about a Repenomamus robustus. The author of the reading believes that this animal was a scavenger, but the lecturer cast doubt on the claims made in the article. She thinks that R.robustus was an active hunter of dinosaurs.
Firstly, the author points out that this animal was too small to be able to hunt dinosaurs. This point is challenged by the lecturer. She says that this animal was small for first years of his life. Furthermore, she argues that robustus was bigger than twice.
Secondly, the author contends that legs of R.robustus were not suitable for hunting just for scavenging. The article notes that they were short and because of that R.robustus were not able to speed up as fast moving Psittacosaurs. The lecturer rebuts this argument. She suggests that short legs of R.robustus let them to reach speed up to 50 km per hour.
Finally, the author states that bones inside the stomach of the R.robustus did not have any arguments that this animal liked hunting on free eggs of animals. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits that R.robustus had a powerful bone (jawbone) allowed him to be a good hunter.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 180, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hort and because of that R.robustus were not able to speed up as fast moving Psit...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, if, second, secondly, as to, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 965.0 1373.03311258 70% => OK
No of words: 200.0 270.72406181 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.825 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.76060309309 4.04702891845 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49498997994 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 115.0 145.348785872 79% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.575 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 287.1 419.366225166 68% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => 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: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.9476937562 49.2860985944 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 74.2307692308 110.228320801 67% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.3846153846 21.698381199 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.84615384615 7.06452816374 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.0 13.3589403974 67% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 73.17 53.8541721854 136% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.8 11.0289183223 62% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.14 12.2367328918 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.46 8.42419426049 89% => OK
difficult_words: 39.0 63.6247240618 61% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 7.0 11.2008830022 62% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.