Private collectors have been selling and buying fossils, the petrified remains of ancient organisms, ever since the eighteenth century. In recent years, however, the sale of fossils, particularly of dinosaurs and other large vertebrates, has grown into a big business. Rare and important fossils are now being sold to private ownership for millions of dollars. This is an unfortunate development for both scientists and the general public.
The public suffers because fossils that would otherwise be donated to museums where everyone can see them are sold to private collectors who do not allow the public to view their collections. Making it harder for the public to see fossils can lead to a decline in public interest in fossils, which would be a pity.
More importantly, scientists are likely to lose access to some of the most important fossils and thereby miss out on potentially crucial discoveries about extinct life forms. Wealthy fossil buyers with a desire to own the rarest and most important fossils can spend virtually limitless amounts of money to acquire them. Scientists and the museums and universities they work for often cannot compete successfully for fossils against millionaire fossil buyers.
Moreover, commercial fossil collectors often destroy valuable scientific evidence associated with the fossils they unearth. Most commercial fossil collectors are untrained or uninterested in carrying out the careful field work and documentation that reveal the most about animal life in the past. For example, scientists have learned about the biology of nest-building dinosaurs called oviraptors by carefully observing the exact position of oviraptor fossils in the ground and the presence of other fossils in the immediate surroundings. Commercial fossil collectors typically pay no attention to how fossils lie in the ground or to the smaller fossils that may surround bigger ones.
Both the reading passage and lecture discuss whether private selling and buying of fossils are good or not for scientists and the general public. The former provides three reasons that it would not be good for scientific communities and people, but the latter refutes each of these points.
First of all, the author of the passage claims that privatization of fossils would make it harder for people to see the valuable fossils records and gradually, they might lose their enthusiasm regarding this. However, the lecture contends that public would able to expose more fossils because of private collection. As more fossils are available, then public schools, library can buy these. People no longer need to depend on the museum only.
Secondly, the text asserts that scientist, the museums and universities would be deprived of conducting significant research of fossils because affluent buyers would acquire them rather than researchers. In contrast, the listening counters that scientists are required to detail examine the fossils. Therefore, no fossils record would pass to the private people without involvement of the researchers.
In third, the reading passage states that materialistic fossil collectors would fail to collect additional documents associated with the fossils, as they have no proper train and knowledge about this. On the other hand, the lecturer mentions that plenty of fossils remain undiscovered by scientists. There is no guarantee that scientific knowledge, experience, and training would able to discover all unearth fossils.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 131, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
... are good or not for scientists and the general public. The former provides three reasons that...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thus, in contrast, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1326.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 239.0 270.72406181 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.54811715481 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.93187294222 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72117756473 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.610878661088 0.540411800872 113% => OK
syllable_count: 387.0 419.366225166 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.9073447055 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.5 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9166666667 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.0 7.06452816374 156% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => 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: 0.156845040833 0.272083759551 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.063520577722 0.0996497079465 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0509247662103 0.0662205650399 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0978688276077 0.162205337803 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0245078653574 0.0443174109184 55% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.3589403974 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.91 12.2367328918 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.34 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.