Private Ownership of fossils.
The passage and the lecture express their views regarding commercialisation of fossils based on viewpoints of public, scientists and possibility of further discoveries. That being said, the author of the passage proposes that commersialisation of fossils have greater harm than benefits for public and scientists, whereas the lecturer presents quite opposite views.
As an initial argument, the passage suggests that public suffers great disadvantage from the private ownership of the fossils, as it directly hampers the opportunity for public to see and know about those fossils. However, the orator counters this argument declaring that with the private ownership of the fossils even low level institution can participate in the ownership and fossils can be seen seen easily in schools, as well as in local library. These omnipresent fossils will surely increase the exposure of fossils than making it opaque under museum.
Further, the speaker casts doubt in the argument proposed by the author regarding the access of fossils to scientific community. She states that the commercialisation of the fossils follow certain cycle in which first of all it has to be discovered by scientists, then only it will go through value chain process. Therefore, scientists have enough time and first hand acess to these fossils to study and find their significance.
Finally, the author in order to prove his argument posists that the commercial fossil will destroy the possibility and evidences of using fossils for scientific findings and discoveries. In contrasts, the lecturer questions the motivation of scientific community towards the discovery of fossils. In addition, she states that if it was not for the commercial fossils and the value they gain, the scientific community as well as university would not have spend this amount of huge resources in excavation and study of the fossils.
Therefore, with these specific and concrete counter argument the speaker posists serious doubt on the author's view regarding commercial fossils.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 394, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: seen
...ate in the ownership and fossils can be seen seen easily in schools, as well as in local ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 455, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'spent'.
Suggestion: spent
...ty as well as university would not have spend this amount of huge resources in excava...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, regarding, so, then, therefore, well, whereas, as to, in addition, in contrast, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 10.4613686534 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 30.3222958057 148% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 5.01324503311 259% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1740.0 1373.03311258 127% => OK
No of words: 315.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.52380952381 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94475204828 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.514285714286 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 522.9 419.366225166 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 21.2450331126 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 45.2087749594 49.2860985944 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.0 110.228320801 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.25 21.698381199 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.0833333333 7.06452816374 157% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.179242724365 0.272083759551 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0649710773125 0.0996497079465 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0999441860942 0.0662205650399 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0940509712131 0.162205337803 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.114838153679 0.0443174109184 259% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 13.3589403974 132% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 53.8541721854 68% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.0289183223 132% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.03 12.2367328918 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.94 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.498013245 118% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.