R. robustus as a hunter
The author and the lecturer are both about the hypothesis regarding the nature of R. robustus. Whereas the author of the reading passage states that these species were not active hunters, the lecturer suggests that R. robustus were more actively involved in hunting than it has been thought of. The lecturer casts doubts on the main points made in the reading passage by providing three reasons.
First of all, according to the reading, due to the small size of R.robustus dinosaurs, they cannot hunt psittacosaurs. This is because the size of psittacosaurs and other similar dinosaurs was much larger in size in comparison to robustus dinosaurs. However, the lecturer refutes this point. She says that though they are smaller than other species but it is found that their body size was bigger than baby Psittacosaurs. Moreover, R. robustus mass is twice the mass of a dinosaur which is found in the digestive system.
Secondly, the reading states that P. robustus were more suitable for scavenging than hunting because of the shape and length of their legs. Due to these features, P. robustus was not able to run fast to catch psittacosaurs as they are much faster than R. robustus dinosaurs. Nevertheless, the lecturer denies the fact. She compares the characteristic of mentioned species with other dinosaurs whose leg shapes were of the same size as R. robusuts, and they still run very fast. Consequently, this proves that R. robustus dinosaurs were both active and successful hunters.
Finally, the reading claims that the bones found inside the digestive system of P.robustus have no teeth marks which prove that they do not belong to the hunter category. On the other hand, the lecturer believes that due to dinosaurs' powerful jaws and with no back teeth, P robustus prefer to shallow the food instead of chewing. This supports that the absence of teeth marks on the bone of psittacosaur dinosaurs does not prove that they were not a hunter.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 199, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: larger
...rs and other similar dinosaurs was much larger in size in comparison to robustus dinosaurs. Ho...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, first, however, moreover, nevertheless, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, whereas, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1633.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 326.0 270.72406181 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00920245399 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24917287072 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62406953053 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493865030675 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 487.8 419.366225166 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 13.0662251656 161% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.3200757144 49.2860985944 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 77.7619047619 110.228320801 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.5238095238 21.698381199 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.04761904762 7.06452816374 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 15.0 4.27373068433 351% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.273642523932 0.272083759551 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0726147820002 0.0996497079465 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0891711982042 0.0662205650399 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.163960612948 0.162205337803 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.051236259368 0.0443174109184 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.9 13.3589403974 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 53.8541721854 120% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 11.0289183223 73% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.48 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.63 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 68.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.5 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.