Repenomamus robustus was not an active hunter of dinosaurs. Repenomamus was a mammal in the early Cretaceous period and its fossils were found in the lagerstätte of the Yixian Formation in the Liaoning province of China. There are three reasons that Repenomamus robustus is not believed to be a predator of dinosaurs.
First, Repenomamus robustus was only about the size of a domestic cat. This small size would have made it nearly impossible for it to actually attack and kill the dinosaurs of this time period who were much larger such as psittacosaurs. Psittacosaurs were almost two meters tall when full grown. Given this size difference, it is unlikely that Repenomamus robustus would have been able to successfully hunt psittacosaurs.
Second, the Repenomamus robustus had legs that were not very well structured for running quickly. Their legs were short. This would have made them too slow to catch dinosaurs when they were running. The leg placement was also not suitable for hunting. Rather than directly underneath the animal, their legs were positioned to the side. Psittacosaurs—the type of dinosaur found in the stomach of R. robustus—were fast moving. It is unlikely that they would have been caught by Repenomamus robustus.
Finally, although there have been dinosaur bones found in the fossilized remains of Repenomamus robustus stomachs, they lack teeth marks on the bones themselves. This lack of teeth marks makes it unlikely that they were eaten by it. Most bones when eaten by other creatures have some evidence of having been bitten before swallowing.
Passage Word count: 268
Audio Script
Even though what you just read about Repenomamus robustus is true, a panel of experts has re-evaluated the evidence and came to different conclusions. First of all, reasonably complete fossils of adult Repenomamus robustus show that it was the size of a Virginia opossum. In fact, Repenomamus robustus was actually larger than several sympatric small dromaeosaurid dinosaurs, such as Graciliraptor, making it more likely that they could have preyed on them. The bone structure found in the fossils show that Repenomamus robustus had a sprawling posture with plantigrade feet. It also had a proportionally longer body with shorter limbs. Secondly, the legs of the current Tasmanian Devil are as short as that of Repenomamus robustus, but it is an active predator. Therefore we cannot conclude that Repenomamus robustus was not a predator of dinosaurs based on leg size. And finally, the teeth and jaw of the Repenomamus show that it was carnivorous. The first evidence that at least some Mesozoic mammals were carnivorous comes from a specimen of Repenomamus robustus with the fragmentary skeleton of a juvenile Psittacosaurus in its stomach. This suggests that it preyed upon small vertebrates and young dinosaurs.
The article and lecture both deals with the hunting behavior of the old mammal, Repenomamus robustus and discusses whether the R robustus was active hunter or not. Whilst, the author believes that they were rather scavengers for three specific reasons. The lecturer opposes authors each claim. In his opinion R robustus were an active hunter.
First of all, writer claims that robustus was smaller in size which was about the size of a domestic cat. He further adds that it was about two meters tall when fully grown which would be smaller than the Psittacosarus. So, it was impossible to hut the animal larger than their size. In contrast, the lecturer argues that they might be smaller than adult Psittacosarus but were larger in size than the baby Psittacosarus. Additionally, he maintains that they might hunt such baby dinosaurs and other dinosaurs of commensurate size.
Secondly, The author mentions that legs of R robustus were suited for scavenging than for hunting. On top of that, he adds that such features of legs were not to catch prey but dinosaur present in its stomach have fast running legs which would not be possible for R robustus to catch. However, the lecturer call this argument into question by exemplifying an example of tasmanian devil. Tasmanian devil also have similar legs as that of the R robustus and were predators who feed upon others. He further remarks that they runs at speed of 50km /hr and catch the prey with similar kinds of legs. So, he claims that same might be with R robustus.
Finally, the author asserts that dinosaurs bones inside the stomach of the R robustus did not devise any evidence of tooth marks which would be if it was eaten by it. But the lecturer oppose the view by saying that R robustus had big jaws to hold the prey but not any back teeth. He further adds that it might have swallowed the prey so teeth marks were not seen.
In conclusion, both author and lecturer holds the conflicting views on hunting behavior of the R robustus.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 47, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: smaller
...of all, writer claims that robustus was smaller in size which was about the size of a domestic ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 379, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: larger
...aller than adult Psittacosarus but were larger in size than the baby Psittacosarus. Additional...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 186, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...legs were not to catch prey but dinosaur present in its stomach have fast running...
^^
Line 5, column 524, Rule ID: NON3PRS_VERB[2]
Message: The pronoun 'they' must be used with a non-third-person form of a verb: 'run'
Suggestion: run
...on others. He further remarks that they runs at speed of 50km /hr and catch the prey...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, in conclusion, in contrast, first of all, on top of that
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 12.0772626932 166% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1661.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 348.0 270.72406181 129% => OK
Chars per words: 4.77298850575 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31911543099 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.46233853177 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 145.348785872 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.497126436782 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 490.5 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.3903265747 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.4210526316 110.228320801 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3157894737 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.21052631579 7.06452816374 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
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: 0.192553167153 0.272083759551 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0656739827497 0.0996497079465 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.063136457626 0.0662205650399 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111647378411 0.162205337803 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0740323796239 0.0443174109184 167% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.2 13.3589403974 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 70.13 53.8541721854 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.9 11.0289183223 72% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.39 12.2367328918 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.39 8.42419426049 88% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 7.0 11.2008830022 62% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.