What the reading passage and the lecture both debate on is whether pterosaurs, ancient winged reptiles were capable of powered flight. While the reading passage lists three points to suggest that they could not supported powered flight, the lecture, however, challenges these points made in the passage.
Firstly, the lecture states that there are new evidence which indicates that pterosaurs were warm-blooded animal to produce enough energy for powered flight, whereas the passage shows that pterosaurs were cold-blooded as modern reptiles so they had slow metabolism and could not supply energy needed to fly. The new evidence shows that they might have had grown hair or fur which is needed for warm-blooded animals to maintain their high body temperature, proving that pterosaurs could generate energy to fly by their faster metabolism.
Secondly, while the passage points out that pterosaurs were too large and too heavy to flap their wings fast enough, the lecture points out that the anatomical feature of pterosaurs' bodies might show that they were able to fly by flapping their wings. Based on the lecture, their bones were hollow and capable of supporting large body so that they do not weigh as heavy as they were previously considered.
Third, the lecture argues that launching pterosaurs' bodies for powered flight was different from how birds' did, while the passage mentions that pterosaurs' fossil evidences show that they were lack of muscles to launch themselves like birds. The lecture indicates that unlike birds who used two legs to run fast or jump high, pterosaurs might have used four legs to support their body for flying like bats, meaning that their few amounts of muscles in their back legs do not completely prove that they were not capable of powered flight.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 146, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'pterosaurs'' or 'pterosaur's'?
Suggestion: pterosaurs'; pterosaur's
...ds did, while the passage mentions that pterosaurs fossil evidences show that they were la...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, third, whereas, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 12.0772626932 157% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 22.412803532 152% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1501.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 291.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15807560137 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13022058845 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.36602367773 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.498281786942 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 447.3 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 13.0662251656 61% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 36.0 21.2450331126 169% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 60.3903965875 49.2860985944 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 187.625 110.228320801 170% => OK
Words per sentence: 36.375 21.698381199 168% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 7.06452816374 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.167307720433 0.272083759551 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0948052180745 0.0996497079465 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0810893009703 0.0662205650399 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126073121215 0.162205337803 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0864167177004 0.0443174109184 195% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 21.1 13.3589403974 158% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.4 53.8541721854 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 11.0289183223 147% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.24 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 16.4 10.498013245 156% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.