The impact of buying and selling fossils by private collectors.
The article introduces the topic of the private collectors selling and buying fossils. More specifically, the writer discusses that this is an unfortunate for the scientist and the general public. The lecturer in the listening passages disagrees. She believes that the claims made are exaggerated, because even when there are some issues, the benefits are bigger. She attacks each of the claims made in the reading.
In the reading, the author begins by stating that the general public is deprived of watch and enjoy the fossil exposition, because these fossils are sold to private collectors and not donated to the museums anymore. Lecture, however, disagrees. She states that this situation increases the public exposition and interest for fossils. She goes on to say that the commercial of fossils increases the interest of more sectors, for instance, universities. They can purchase fossils and give them more exposure to general public.
The author also claims that scientist do not have access to all these fossils, simply because is unlikely that they compete with rich buyers. This may result in a lack of potential discoveries. Again the lecturer believes there are flaws in the write’s logic. The speaker holds that all the fossils that are sold firstly must be discovered and examined. On the top of this, the only people capable to do this job are the scientist. Thus, the scientific community will not miss any potential discovery or important information related to the fossils.
Another reason why the author feels that the private commercial of fossil affects negatively the scientific community and general public is that they use to damage the material collected. Also, they do not document the important information and context of the fossils, as a consequence of the lack of knowledge in the field. The professor in the listening passage is doubtful that this is accurate. She suggests that these discoveries are mostly thanks to the private cooperation. The lecturer believes that most universities and public institution do not invest in favor of these investigations. This is why even though scientists may lose part of these information, the positive impact of private collectors is greater.
To sum up, both the writer and the professor hold conflicting views about the impact of fossils private collectors. They will have trouble finding common ground on this issue.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 182, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...n unfortunate for the scientist and the general public. The lecturer in the listening passages...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 55, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
..., the author begins by stating that the general public is deprived of watch and enjoy the foss...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 510, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
... fossils and give them more exposure to general public. The author also claims that scienti...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 242, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...he lecturer believes there are flaws in the write’s logic. The speaker holds that all the...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 123, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...negatively the scientific community and general public is that they use to damage the material...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 151, Rule ID: USE_TO_VERB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
...mmunity and general public is that they use to damage the material collected. Also,...
^^^
Line 7, column 650, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this information' or 'these informations'?
Suggestion: this information; these informations
...even though scientists may lose part of these information, the positive impact of private collect...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, however, if, may, so, thus, for instance, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 22.412803532 170% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2024.0 1373.03311258 147% => OK
No of words: 385.0 270.72406181 142% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25714285714 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4296068528 4.04702891845 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76337758773 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 145.348785872 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.480519480519 0.540411800872 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 629.1 419.366225166 150% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 3.25607064018 307% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 13.0662251656 184% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.7276379135 49.2860985944 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 84.3333333333 110.228320801 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.0416666667 21.698381199 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.04166666667 7.06452816374 43% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 4.45695364238 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.241094144092 0.272083759551 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0593001503042 0.0996497079465 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.101206460749 0.0662205650399 153% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130980720004 0.162205337803 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0533007079317 0.0443174109184 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.93 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 63.6247240618 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.