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 rate among public. The lecturer rebuts this argument, saying that the high interest among private collectors actually benefits scientists, making more parts available for interested parties 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, and that 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 : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => 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: 1792.0 1373.03311258 131% => OK
No of words: 310.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.78064516129 5.08290768461 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9535847459 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 145.348785872 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.612903225806 0.540411800872 113% => OK
syllable_count: 538.2 419.366225166 128% => 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: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.689302982 49.2860985944 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.411764706 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2352941176 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.11764705882 7.06452816374 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
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: 0.145385445381 0.272083759551 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0417945978177 0.0996497079465 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0799965092309 0.0662205650399 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0863209676917 0.162205337803 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.102748714999 0.0443174109184 232% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 53.8541721854 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.24 12.2367328918 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.72 8.42419426049 115% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 63.6247240618 160% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => 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.