Both the text and the lecture talk about selling ancient fossils to private individuals. The former mentions that this is not beneficial for both scholars and the general public due to three reasons given. The professor, on the other hand, casts doubt on it by saying that doing so has more advantages than disadvantages. She adds three reasons to show its usefulness as follows.
First of all, both the article and the lecturer posit where it is good for public or not. The text explains that private persons will not permit the public to have access to their collection and as a result, people will lose their interests in fossils. The lecturer, in contrast, rebuts this idea by pointing out that in this way, people can have great exposure to these fossils, not less exposure. She adds that selling fossils to millionaires will increase interests, whereas public schools and institutions can not routinely buy or hold such evidences.
Second of all, both the writer and the professor put forward whether it is beneficial for scientists or not. The reading avers that universities and museums cannot afford to buy millions of dollars the wealthy persons can spend leading to less access for scientists and scholars. The speaker, however, refutes this by explaining that this idea is not realistic. According to her, scientists need to do detailed examinations and test to identify those fossils. So, by providing them to private collectors, the scientific community doesn’t miss anything out.
Finally, both the author and the speaker put forth the possibility of damage for fossils. The writer thinks that commercial fossil collectors have no education regarding how to preserve this kind of evidences carefully giving rise to harm to them. The lecture, conversely, rejects the idea by citing that a lot of fossils remain undiscovered. By doing so, more fossil can be found and many of their locations and surroundings would be discovered in the end.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 164, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...ot beneficial for both scholars and the general public due to three reasons given. The profess...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 459, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...undings would be discovered in the end.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, finally, first, however, if, regarding, second, so, whereas, in contrast, kind of, as a result, 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: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => 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: 1643.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 322.0 270.72406181 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10248447205 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23607819155 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7150548962 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.562111801242 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 486.0 419.366225166 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => 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: 31.8671550493 49.2860985944 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.6470588235 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9411764706 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.47058823529 7.06452816374 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.1188405865 0.272083759551 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0376527535235 0.0996497079465 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0474999812121 0.0662205650399 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0746415985982 0.162205337803 46% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0341889092654 0.0443174109184 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.8 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 63.6247240618 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.