Private collectors
In his commentary, the author claims that illegal market of petrified remains, being controlled by wealthy people, has grown into a big business. He believes that such trading harms scientists and museums, reducing the number of fossils available for investigation and exhibition. However, the lecturer questions whether side effects outweigh benefits of commercial trading of unearthed fossils.
The first contradicting point is the remains donations’ to museums. According to the author, selling petrifications to private collectors leads to a drop in the public’s interest, reducing the museum’s attendance. The lecturer rebuts this argument, saying that the high interest among private collectors actually benefits scientists, making more parts available for research in the market. Thus, museums can routinely buy them and add to their exhibitions.
Another controversial issue is the potential miss of important discoveries. The author claims that wealthy buyers control the market and buy fossils no matter the cost, limiting the access of scientists to remains. This limit reduces the number of possible discoveries about extinct life forms. This point is challenged by the lecturer, who says that every fossil has to be verified by an expert before entering the market. In fact, remains are identified and reviewed by scientists at first.
The third aspect of the debate is the lack of experience among private investors. Unlike experienced professionals, wealthy collectors are uninterested in the maintenance of remains and other important evidence provided by these fossils at excavation sites. For instance, dinosaur’s fossils are especially of a great value unearthed, since their position may provide evidence to answer scientists’ specific questions. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits that many expeditions are fostered by fossil hunting. Thus, some petrified remains could have never been found without them. Indeed, commercial expeditions provide accurate locations where other fossils could be found, making it useful for explorers.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, however, if, may, so, third, thus, as to, for instance, in fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1766.0 1373.03311258 129% => OK
No of words: 305.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.79016393443 5.08290768461 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17902490978 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96644315705 2.5805825403 115% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 145.348785872 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.613114754098 0.540411800872 113% => OK
syllable_count: 528.3 419.366225166 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.9894803503 49.2860985944 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.1111111111 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.9444444444 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.77777777778 7.06452816374 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.147276494498 0.272083759551 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0429541344784 0.0996497079465 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0873385886129 0.0662205650399 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0930907813291 0.162205337803 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.113877976454 0.0443174109184 257% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.3589403974 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.01 12.2367328918 131% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.66 8.42419426049 115% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 63.6247240618 159% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.