The short faced bear was a giant North American bear that became extinct about 11 000 years ago This ancient bear was much larger than today s bears reaching up to 1 8 meters in height at the shoulder and weighing nearly 1 000 kilograms There are several | TOEFL IELTS GMAT GRE SAT ACT PTE ESL

Essay topics:

The short-faced bear was a giant North American bear that became extinct about 11,000 years ago. This ancient bear was much larger than today’s bears, reaching up to 1.8 meters in height at the shoulder and weighing nearly 1,000 kilograms. There are several theories about what the bear ate to sustain its massive body size.

One theory is that the short-faced bear ate extremely large mammals that used to live in North America. These extinct mammals included giant species of buffalo and elephant-like mammoths. The short-faced bear’s massive front legs and feet would have allowed it to attack giant mammals by pulling them to the ground and preventing them from rising again to flee.

Another theory is that the short-faced bear ate fast-running animals such as deer and antelope. Although animals like deer and antelope would have been difficult to catch because of their great running speeds, paleontologists have reason to believe that the short-faced bear would have been able to keep up with them. Skeleton of the short-faced bear indicate that it had unusually long legs that would have allowed it to attain running speeds as fast as 65 kilometers per hour. At such speeds, the short-faced bear would have been able to chase down these fast-moving prey animals.

Finally, some paleontologists think that the short-faced bear was a type of meat eater called a scavenger. Instead of chasing and killing their own prey, scavengers eat animals that have already been killed by other animals. According to this view, the short-faced bear’s great size would have allowed it to frighten or fight off predators like wolves or lions and then eat the prey that those animals had killed. The short-faced bear was so large that even a group of several smaller predators would have been unable to defend their prey from it successfully.

When it comes to what the short-faced bears feed on to sustain their large body size, there exist three theories that sound plausible in the reading passage but are actually proven full of flaws in the listening materials.

First of all, the short-faced bears ate large mammals such as mammoths or horses. It seems right due to its relatively large body size. However, the thin bones of the short-faced bears intended that it was impossible for them to pull down large mammals or prey of large body size. To achieve hunting large mammals, it is necessary to have strong enough bones to conduct some fierce actions, which was not possible for the short-faced bears. That is why the first opinion of the reading is challenged heavily.

Moreover, the short-faced bears were thought to be fed on fast-running animals such as deer. It is plausible that the bears of large body size had long legs that can chase fast-running animals. Nonetheless, such fast-running animals would suddenly change their running directions to cast off the predators while the short-faced bears were too heavy to catch their sudden change of directions. Thus, it is unlikely for the short-faced bears to catch up with fast-running animals not even to say feed on them.

Furthermore, it is doubted that the short-faced bears were scavengers in terms of the imagination of their frightening away or fighting with other predators to obtain food. On the contrary, the truth has been revealed by the teeth of the short-faced bears that did not show the marks created by chewing bones as scavengers. This decisive evidence has broken down the third theory that the short-faced bears were scavengers.

To summarize the three theories of what the short-faced bears ate, they are all plausible but proven spurious by the essential archeological pieces of evidence.

Votes

Essay Categories

Integrated TOEFL Writing

Comments

Essay evaluations by e-grader

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 162, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ntial archeological pieces of evidence.
^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, furthermore, however, moreover, nonetheless, so, third, thus, while, such as, first of all, on the contrary

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => 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: 1540.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 303.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08250825083 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17215713816 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75203991777 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.514851485149 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 450.9 419.366225166 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.5821941851 49.2860985944 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.0 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6428571429 21.698381199 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.21428571429 7.06452816374 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.27373068433 211% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.245992416199 0.272083759551 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.103667344154 0.0996497079465 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0510792009641 0.0662205650399 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.145169883185 0.162205337803 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0370091640289 0.0443174109184 84% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.7 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.

Essay evaluations by e-grader

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 162, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ntial archeological pieces of evidence.
^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, furthermore, however, moreover, nonetheless, so, third, thus, while, such as, first of all, on the contrary

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments