The lecture discusses about the feeding habit and the nature of R. Robustus either it is a scavenger or a hunter. The passage suggests that R. robustus have trait that make it more similar to the scavangers . But the lecturer states that there are many evidences that give us enough idea about the nature of R. robustus: a hunter.
Firstly, given by its small size, it has been regarded as a scavenger as it would not be possible for a small animal to hunt large dinosaurs. Thus, the passage concludes it to be a scavenger. But the lectures suggests that there may be possibility that R. Robustus might feed on the small babies of the R. Robustus and dinosaur that are similar to its size.
Secondly, the passage suggests that R. Robustus have such small legs that prevent it to move as fast as possible to act as a hunter. But the lecturer insists giving examples of "Tasmanian devil" to support her view. As Tasmanian devil also have a similar type of legs but can run as fast as 15 km per hour gives evidences that R. Robustus might actually be a hunter.
Finally, they lack of teeth mark on the bone can be explained as R. robustus prefer to consume the food as a whole or in big pieces making it difficult to observe such markings in the bone of the dinosaur. Since the basic assumption of the lack of teeth mark cannot give enough evidences to indicate that R. Robustus is actually a scavenger rather than a hunter.
The lecture discusses about the feeding habit and the nature of R. Robustus either it is a scavenger or a hunter. The passage suggests that R. robustus have trait that make it more similar to the scavangers . But the lecturer states that there are many evidences that give us enough idea about the nature of R. robustus: a hunter.
Firstly, given by its small size, it has been regarded as a scavenger as it would not be possible for a small animal to hunt large dinosaurs. Thus, the passage concludes it to be a scavenger. But the lectures suggests that there may be possibility that R. Robustus might feed on the small babies of the R. Robustus and dinosaur that are similar to its size.
Secondly, the passage suggests that R. Robustus have such small legs that prevent it to move as fast as possible to act as a hunter. But the lecturer insists giving examples of "Tasmanian devil" to support her view. As Tasmanian devil also have a similar type of legs but can run as fast as 15 km per hour gives evidences that R. Robustus might actually be a hunter.
Finally, they lack of teeth mark on the bone can be explained as R. robustus prefer to consume the food as a whole or in big pieces making it difficult to observe such markings in the bone of the dinosaur. Since the basic assumption of the lack of teeth mark cannot give enough evidences to indicate that R. Robustus is actually a scavenger rather than a hunter.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 207, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...t make it more similar to the scavangers . But the lecturer states that there are ...
^^
Line 7, column 207, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Since” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...h markings in the bone of the dinosaur. Since the basic assumption of the lack of tee...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => 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: 1180.0 1373.03311258 86% => OK
No of words: 260.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.53846153846 5.08290768461 89% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01553427287 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.554455294 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 125.0 145.348785872 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.480769230769 0.540411800872 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 377.1 419.366225166 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.9329854272 49.2860985944 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 59.0 110.228320801 54% => More chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 13.0 21.698381199 60% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 4.05 7.06452816374 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => 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: 14.0 4.27373068433 328% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.485024602552 0.272083759551 178% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.16641911028 0.0996497079465 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.131012047503 0.0662205650399 198% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.324106952251 0.162205337803 200% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.293920748031 0.0443174109184 663% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 6.5 13.3589403974 49% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 66.74 53.8541721854 124% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 11.0289183223 65% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 8.16 12.2367328918 67% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.07 8.42419426049 84% => OK
difficult_words: 46.0 63.6247240618 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 4.5 10.7273730684 42% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.2 10.498013245 69% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.