The Komodo dragon is a very large species of lizard that lives on a few small islands in Indonesia When the reptiles were first intensively studied their hunting technique left many biologists puzzled because they simply bit their prey and then waited for

Essay topics:

The Komodo dragon is a very large species of lizard that lives on a few small islands in Indonesia. When the reptiles were first intensively studied, their hunting technique left many biologists puzzled because they simply bit their prey and then waited for it to slowly die. Experts started investigating the animal's mouths and they eventually suggested two possible explanations: massive bacterial load in their saliva or a specialized kind of venom. The first hypothesis was popular for many decades.

The first reason why massive bacterial load in their saliva seemed the more likely cause of death was that animals that had been bitten by Komodo dragons often had serious infections around the bites. Such infections would rapidly spread toxins throughout an animals' blood and kill it within a few days. Since the dragons are reptiles, and they can go for weeks between feedings, this strategy would work.

Second, the mouths of Komodo dragons are full of harmful bacteria. Researchers took samples of dragon saliva and analyzed it to see what bacteria were present. They found over 50 disease-causing pathogens (microorganisms like bacteria, viruses, and fungi that cause diseases), and when they injected the saliva directly into mice, many of the mice soon died. Samples of the mice's blood were full of the same kinds of bacteria.

Third, scientists believed that the bacteria allowed the dragons to catch much larger prey than their usual diet. Komodo dragons normally eat pigs and deer, which quickly die from blood loss when bitten. However, humans introduced water buffalo to the dragons' habitat. Water buffalo are so much larger than the dragons that they are difficult to kill. A massive bacterial load would turn otherwise survivable wounds for the buffalo into a slow death from bacterial infection.

The reading passage and the lecture both talk about the two existing hypothesis about the hunting technique of the Komodo dragons. The reading passage argues that these reptiles hunt using a large amount of bacteria and presents three supporting reasons. The lecture disputes each of the three reasons and argues that the dragons use venom to take down their preys.

Firstly, the reading passage points out that the presence of bacterial infections in animals who are hunted by the Komodo dragon shows that the dragons must use bacteria in hunting. The lecturer points out that this conclusion is based on visual observation only. Researchers performing medical scans on the Komodo dragons have found out the presence of venom glands inside the reptiles. Although these reptiles do not have a direct way of injecting the venom, like snakes, the presence of the venom glands show that the reptiles must be using venom in order to hunt.

Secondly, the passage argues that the mouths of the Komodo dragons are filled with lethal bacteria, which must be used by them in hunting. The lecture counters that the source of these bacteria are the wild specimens that the dragons feed upon. To confirm this, researchers kept a group of Komodo dragons in captivity. Saliva samples taken from this group of dragons showed no presence of the harmful bacteria that the passage talks about.

Thirdly, the passage says that the bacteria enables the dragons to hunt large animals, which would otherwise survive the wounds made by Komodo dragons. The lecture disputes this by saying that the dragons hunt by creating very big wounds, which would not be necessary if they were relying on bacterial infections to kill their preys.

Average: 7.3 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:


Grammar and spelling errors:
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... and presents three supporting reasons. The lecture disputes each of the three reas...

Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1436.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 284.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05633802817 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.29661697154 2.5805825403 89% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.482394366197 0.540411800872 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 433.8 419.366225166 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.9446120377 49.2860985944 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.461538462 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8461538462 21.698381199 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.30769230769 7.06452816374 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.150383977817 0.272083759551 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0614387745113 0.0996497079465 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0351697099008 0.0662205650399 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.104051392982 0.162205337803 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0361429638125 0.0443174109184 82% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?


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.