The passage provided tries to argue that R. robustus was a mammal that did not hunt for its food, rather, engaged in scavanging. The woman in the lecture broadly posits that these arguments have some flaws and ommisions, and specifically address each argument in the passage to provide counter arguments.
The lecturer states that the idea that R. robustsus cannot be a hunter due to its small size compared to a normal psittacosaur dinasour described in the passage is false since R. robustus may have hunted for babay dinasaurs. Baby dinasaurs are twice smaller in size than R. robustus, which is a general size ratio between predators and preys.
The lecturer then goes on to rebut the argument that since R. robustus had small legs, it could not have been a hunting animal. For this purpose, the lecturer provides a modern day animal, the Tasmanian devil, which has small legs like R. robustus, but achieves high speeds. Thus, she argues R. robustus would have been able to achieve high speeds and hunt dinasaurs, albeit it had small legs.
Lecturer then reveals a flaw in the passage's next argument, no teeth marks being on the bones of the remains of psittacosaur found inside R. robustus remains as evidence of R. robustus not being a hunter. She argues that the R. robustus, though had powerful jaws to grab on to prey, did not pocess back teeth for chewing, and hence swallowed the enemy whole or took in large pieces of the prey. Such feeding behaviour answers the questions of lack of teeth marks, with no restrition to categorize R. robustus as a hunter.
In this manner the lecturer provided counter arguments to emphasize that R. robustus was a hunting mammal.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...assage to provide counter arguments. The lecturer states that the idea that R. r...
^^^
Line 3, column 251, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: smaller
...bay dinasaurs. Baby dinasaurs are twice smaller in size than R. robustus, which is a general si...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, if, may, so, then, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1399.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 288.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.85763888889 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47748104461 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548611111111 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 420.3 419.366225166 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 13.0662251656 176% => OK
Sentence length: 12.0 21.2450331126 56% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.2390844422 49.2860985944 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 60.8260869565 110.228320801 55% => More chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 12.5217391304 21.698381199 58% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 1.52173913043 7.06452816374 22% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.27373068433 281% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.368435401274 0.272083759551 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.155837260301 0.0996497079465 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.184534265156 0.0662205650399 279% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.221898650438 0.162205337803 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0660869092199 0.0443174109184 149% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 7.7 13.3589403974 58% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 67.76 53.8541721854 126% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.8 11.0289183223 62% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.02 12.2367328918 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.96 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 6.8 10.498013245 65% => OK
text_standard: 7.0 11.2008830022 62% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.0 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.