The lecture and the reading are about theories of how Agnostids had lived million years ago. The author of the reading proposes three main assumptions. The lecturer, however, challenges the theories put forth by the author. She is of the opinion that all three assumptions have serious flaws.
To begin with, the author argues that Agnostids could have been free ocean swimming predators. The article mentions that their ancestors which were primitive arthropods were also strong swimmers lived on predation. Also, while there were pretty small in size, there were plenty of other small marine species that Agnostids could have feed on. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. She is of the opinion that to be well-developed predators, Agnostids should have had big and sharp eyes but they had actually very poor eyesight and in some cases were blinds. Additionally, she says that no other predation mechanisms that they could have been used were find in the fossil records.
Secondly, the writer suggests that, they might have lived at the bottom of seas and oceans. In the article it is said that, there are evidences that early anthropods lived in this way surviving by feeding on dead organisms or eating bacteria on the seafloor. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that, sea dwellers are usually slow moving species that lives in restricted zones. She elaborates on this by bringing up the point that, evidences reveals that the population of Agnostids had been scattered over a vast area which implies that they were actually fast moving species and this is unusual to the seafloor dwellers.
Finally, the author posits that, they might have been Parasites living on a larger host organism. Moreover, in the lecture it is stated that, one reason to accept this theory is that many modern-day descendants of arthropods like fleas, mites and so on are in fact parasite. In contrast, the lecturer’s position is that this suggestion is invalid too. She asserts that the parasites population cannot exceed a certain limit because they would probably kill host organisms.However, fossil records prove that Agnostids population were abundance so they positively were not parasites.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 75, Rule ID: NODT_DOZEN[1]
Message: Use simply: 'a million'.
Suggestion: a million
...out theories of how Agnostids had lived million years ago. The author of the reading pr...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 153, 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.
...eading proposes three main assumptions. The lecturer, however, challenges the theor...
^^^
Line 3, column 246, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: small
...redation. Also, while there were pretty small in size, there were plenty of other small marin...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 664, Rule ID: WERE_VBB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'where' or 'we'?
Suggestion: where; we
...chanisms that they could have been used were find in the fossil records. Secondly...
^^^^
Line 3, column 669, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'found'.
Suggestion: found
...sms that they could have been used were find in the fossil records. Secondly, the...
^^^^
Line 7, column 379, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'parasites'' or 'parasite's'?
Suggestion: parasites'; parasite's
...on is invalid too. She asserts that the parasites population cannot exceed a certain limi...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 478, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: However
...they would probably kill host organisms.However, fossil records prove that Agnostids po...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, however, moreover, second, secondly, so, well, while, in contrast, in fact, in some cases, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 10.4613686534 249% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 12.0772626932 190% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 22.412803532 187% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1867.0 1373.03311258 136% => OK
No of words: 359.0 270.72406181 133% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20055710306 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35284910392 4.04702891845 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65606444701 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 145.348785872 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.540389972145 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 566.1 419.366225166 135% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.4149580016 49.2860985944 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.722222222 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9444444444 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.44444444444 7.06452816374 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 63.6247240618 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.