Pterosaurs were an ancient group of winged reptiles that lived alongside the dinosaurs. Many pterosaurs were very large, some as large as a giraffe and with a wingspan of over 12 meters. Paleontologists have long wondered whether large pterosaurs were capable of powered flight (flying by flapping their wings) or whether they were able only to glide. Several arguments have been made against powered flight.
Doubters point out that since modern reptiles are cold-blooded, ancient reptiles such as pterosaurs were probably cold-blooded as well. Cold-blooded animals typically have a slow metabolism and are unable to produce a lot of energy. Powered flight is an activity requiring a lot of energy, which is why all modern vertebrates that fly are warm-blooded, not cold-blooded. It seemed unlikely that pterosaurs would have been able to generate the energy needed to fly.
Second, there is a limit to the weight of animals that can be kept airborne by powered flight. Pterosaurs that were as large as a giraffe were probably so heavy that they would not have been able to flap their wings fast enough to stay aloft for any length of time.
Third, all animals with powered flight are able to take off from the ground. For example, birds take off by jumping from their legs or running to gain speed and then jumping. But these methods would not have worked for large pterosaurs. Large pterosaurs would have needed big, powerful muscles in their back legs to launch themselves into the air, and we know from fossilized bones that their back leg muscles were too small and weak to allow the pterosaurs to run fast enough or jump high enough to launch themselves into the air.
The reading passage explores the issue of whether the Pterosaurs were capable of powered flight, and several reasons are offered in support of this argument. Although the statement in the article seems plausible in the beginning, the lecturer casts doubts on it for the following reasons.
First of all, even though the reading passage suggests that Pterosaurs were probably cold-blooded, so this won't allow them to produce enough energy to fly. In contrast, the lecturer argues that some researchers have found that Pterosaurs feature dense hair covering their bodies, which indicates that they are warm-blooded animals. If this is true, then they will be able to fly. Therefore, the lecturer's argument disproves its counterpart in the reading.
Secondly, the statement held in the reading passage suggests that Pterosaurs are too heavy to fly since they are as large as a giraffe. Conversely, the lecturer rejects the idea by bringing up a logical reason that their anatomical structures show that they have hollow bones that make Pterosaurs light-weighted despite their large body frames.
Last but not least, the lecturer acutely identifies the weakness in the reading passage that Pterosaurs'' leg muscles were too weak to provide the power to take off. The lecturer convincingly points out that Ptersoraus may have used four limbs instead of two to run and jump. As a result, this will let them obtain sufficient power to take off from the ground.
In conclusion, based on the evidence presented above, it can be clearly seen that the stances on both sides are paradoxical. Though the contents in the reading passage seem convincing, the lecturer disproves them by solid evidence.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 396, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lecturers'' or 'lecturer's'?
Suggestion: lecturers'; lecturer's
...hey will be able to fly. Therefore, the lecturers argument disproves its counterpart in t...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, first, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, in conclusion, in contrast, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1425.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 272.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23897058824 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06108636974 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69406536923 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.591911764706 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 430.2 419.366225166 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.6278793124 49.2860985944 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.615384615 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9230769231 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.61538461538 7.06452816374 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.177434626274 0.272083759551 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.056487643551 0.0996497079465 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.060884349233 0.0662205650399 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0943013124882 0.162205337803 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0539321514317 0.0443174109184 122% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.