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 and the lecture, talk about the increment that has experimented the number of fossils sold to private buyers. The reading claims that it is detrimental for scientists and the general public, whereas the lecturer, even when accept that exist some negative consequences, says that the problem is oversized. She refutes each reason presented, casting doubts in the author's beliefs.
Firstly, the lecture points out that the fossils sold to private owners, instead of to be exposed in a museum, are out of the sight of the public, which undermine their interest on them. However, the professor disproves this point stating that, thanks to the growing interest, exist innumerable fossils available in the market that could be acquired by institutions without a giant budget, like libraries or schools, which facilitate the access of the public to them.
Secondly, the text argues that, due to fossils are now privates pieces, the scientists do not have access to them, difficulting valuable discoveries. Notwithstanding, the lecturer mention that this argument is not realistic, because before to put a price on a piece, it has to pass through the examination of scientists who are the only ones capacitated to determinate their authenticity and characteristics. Therefore, the scientific community could recollect any new data available.
Finally, the reading remarks that owing to this practice, many scientific evidence is lost when fossils are removed from the place where was discovered. Nonetheless, the orator highlights the weakness of this point, noticing that thanks to this an elevated number of fossils have been found and, even with that drawback, it is better to count with them and the information that they offer than to have it underground and unfounded.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 194, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...t is detrimental for scientists and the general public, whereas the lecturer, even when accept...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ing doubts in the authors beliefs. Firstly, the lecture points out that the...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the access of the public to them. Secondly, the text argues that, due to f...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 21, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... recollect any new data available. Finally, the reading remarks that owing ...
^^^^^^^
Line 25, column 59, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun evidence seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much scientific evidence', 'a good deal of scientific evidence'.
Suggestion: much scientific evidence; a good deal of scientific evidence
...ng remarks that owing to this practice, many scientific evidence is lost when fossils are removed from t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, however, if, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, whereas, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 12.0772626932 157% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1535.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 283.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42402826855 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10153676581 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91642548155 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 145.348785872 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.600706713781 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 456.3 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => 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: 28.0 21.2450331126 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 72.71148465 49.2860985944 148% => OK
Chars per sentence: 153.5 110.228320801 139% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.3 21.698381199 130% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.4 7.06452816374 147% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0442383467713 0.272083759551 16% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0162491801849 0.0996497079465 16% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0187980561191 0.0662205650399 28% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0257500947743 0.162205337803 16% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00815064160195 0.0443174109184 18% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.2 13.3589403974 136% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 53.8541721854 80% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.2367328918 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.43 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 63.6247240618 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.