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 reading and lecture are both about Mammal Repenomamus robustus. The author of the reading feels that R. robustus was not an active hunter, as suggested by some researchers; however, the lecturer challenges the claim made by the author. He is of the opinion that R.robustus was an active hunter. The lecturer cast doubt on the main point made in the reading by providing three reasons.
To begin with, the author argues that R. robustus was small in size. He feels that robustus was much smaller than psittacosaurs, which were almost two meters tall when fully grown. It is unlikely that robustus would have been able to successfully hunt psittacosaurs or similar dinosaurs. This argument is challenged by the lecturer. He claims the size of r. robustus was bigger than baby psittacosaurs; thus, they hunted baby psittacosaurs.
Secondly, the reading states that the legs of r.robustus were shorts. He feels that R. robustus did not chase after prey; moreover, Psittacosaurs were fast in moving. Nevertheless, the lecturer refutes this by mentioning that the size of transpos mammals is also very short. He is of the opinion that the speed of such mammals is 15 km/hr, and they catch the prey quickly.
Finally, the author posits that dinosaur bones inside the stomach of r. robustus provides no evidence to support the idea that the dinosaur had been actively hunted. He feels that when an animal hunted other animals, there are usually teeth marks on the bones of the animal that was eaten. Nonetheless, the lecturer believes that R.Robustus swallowed the meat as they did not have back teeth.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 55, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: small
... the author argues that R. robustus was small in size. He feels that robustus was much smalle...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 15, column 333, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Robustus
...netheless, the lecturer believes that R.Robustus swallowed the meat as they did not have...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, however, moreover, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, thus, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1350.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 267.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05617977528 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04229324003 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66891186045 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 145.348785872 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.539325842697 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 400.5 419.366225166 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 3.25607064018 276% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
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: 21.0 13.0662251656 161% => OK
Sentence length: 12.0 21.2450331126 56% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.9443976016 49.2860985944 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 64.2857142857 110.228320801 58% => More chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 12.7142857143 21.698381199 59% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 4.85714285714 7.06452816374 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
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: 0.221789413868 0.272083759551 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.068442748152 0.0996497079465 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.069116294077 0.0662205650399 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138464403933 0.162205337803 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0511734176275 0.0443174109184 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.8 13.3589403974 66% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 67.76 53.8541721854 126% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.8 11.0289183223 62% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.18 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.96 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.0 10.7273730684 47% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 6.8 10.498013245 65% => OK
text_standard: 7.0 11.2008830022 62% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.