integrated essay TPO 43
The reading mainly states that there are not enough fossil information related to agnostics as a group of destructed marine animals that they were primitive arthropods-relatives of modern insects. And he provides tree theories about how agnostics may have lived. On the other hand, the professor in the listening believes that all of these reasons in the passages are weakness and he refutes author’s ideas by giving some reasons.
First of all, the lecture asserts that agnostics were free-swimming predators and they preyed smaller animals, and there are evidences that primitive arthropods were strong swimmers and active predators. However, the speaker claims that predators usually are the large animals who developed eyes, while agnostics have tiny eyes and blind that they cannot be predators. And he expresses that agnostics used to another sensory organs to find prey that not evidences in fossils.
Addition, the author supposes that agnostics were seafloor dwellers who living in above of the level water and the fed with death organism or grazed on bacteria. On the contrary, the lecturer discusses that the seafloor animals move slowly and they just move in some small areas, in contrast, agnostics move fast in the large locations and distances easily. In fact, agnostics are not like the seafloor animals and they are unusual.
Finally, the reading believes that agnostics were parasites and they lived and fed on the larger organisms. Conversely, the professor argues that parasites are limited and they have not a large population. If agnostics are parasites, they will kill organisms that they live on them due to they have a large population.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 320, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...em due to they have a large population.
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, finally, first, however, if, may, so, well, while, in contrast, in fact, first of all, 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: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
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: 1414.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 266.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31578947368 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03850299372 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73560246238 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.533834586466 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 444.6 419.366225166 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.4031175721 49.2860985944 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.833333333 110.228320801 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1666666667 21.698381199 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.0833333333 7.06452816374 157% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.279034417758 0.272083759551 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.114972076545 0.0996497079465 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0670356187889 0.0662205650399 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.178048662058 0.162205337803 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0359302165289 0.0443174109184 81% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.3589403974 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 53.8541721854 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.