possibility of associating a new fossil found in america to the early bees in two million years ago
The passage and the talk both discuss the possibility of associating a new fossil found in america to the early bees in two million years ago. The author claims that the fossil can not be of a bee in that time. The lecturer, however, refutes the author's assessment. She demonstrates three reason to cast doubt on the claims made in the reading.
The first allegation of the passage against which the lecturer argues is that the fossil is for the bees' nest and they did not find any fossil of actual bees. However, the professor states that in that time there were not sticky substances of trees to preserve the fossil of insects, because there was not any kind of that trees.
Second, according to the reading, absence of flowering plants would result in lack of bees in that time, since the bees eat flowers; although the speaker finds this idea debatable. She bolsters her opinion by stating that early bees could use other plants as nutrition. And by arrival of the flowering plants in 125 million years ago, their eating habits changed.
Lastly, the lecture contradicts this fallacy of the passage that lacking of some finer details of the found fossil like spiral pattern cap shows that this fossil nest could be for other insects, saying that there is a chemical evidence that shows this fossil is for bees' nest. She says that there is a distinctive water chemical substance in the fossil that is the same material used by modern bees to construct their combs.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 212, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ossil can not be of a bee in that time. The lecturer, however, refutes the authors ...
^^^
Line 1, column 247, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ime. The lecturer, however, refutes the authors assessment. She demonstrates three reas...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, lastly, second, so, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1213.0 1373.03311258 88% => OK
No of words: 257.0 270.72406181 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.71984435798 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00390054096 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.29898205206 2.5805825403 89% => OK
Unique words: 136.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.529182879377 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 361.8 419.366225166 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.9140967139 49.2860985944 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.272727273 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3636363636 21.698381199 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.90909090909 7.06452816374 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.374473070547 0.272083759551 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.141166708844 0.0996497079465 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.206283701863 0.0662205650399 312% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.216860850775 0.162205337803 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.152386939957 0.0443174109184 344% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.05 53.8541721854 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.39 12.2367328918 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 65.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.5 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.