The reading and lecture are both about the powered flight ability of pterosaurs. The author of the passage feels that the winged reptiles could not fly by flapping their wings. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the writer. He is of the opinion that these explanations are faulty.
To begin with, the author argues that ancient reptiles were cold-blooded. The article mentions that they are unable to generate sufficient energy to fly. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He claims that the recent discovery of pterosaurs' fossil reveals that they have dense fur or hair. As a result, these reptiles could probably maintain a high body temperature. Accordingly, he said that they would have supplied enough energy to fly.
Secondly, the writer suggests that the ancient reptiles are too massive to able to fly. The lecturer, however, refutes this by mentioning that bones of pterosaurs are hollow instead of solid. He elaborates on this by bringing up the point that these structures enable them to be very light despite their big size. Consequently, their weight is low enough to fly.
Finally, the author posits that pterosaurs' back leg muscles were significantly small and weak to allow them to run and jump to launch to the air. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that pterosaurs used all four back legs to launch into the sky, unlike birds that can take off by jumping two legs. Hence, they did not need high powerful muscles in their back legs to fly.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 178, 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.
... could not fly by flapping their wings. The lecturer challenges the claims made by ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, consequently, finally, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, in contrast, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => 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: 1245.0 1373.03311258 91% => OK
No of words: 251.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.96015936255 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98032404683 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54213239312 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.577689243028 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 376.2 419.366225166 90% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.7237569985 49.2860985944 60% => OK
Chars per sentence: 73.2352941176 110.228320801 66% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.7647058824 21.698381199 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.88235294118 7.06452816374 97% => 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 : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => 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: 9.3 13.3589403974 70% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.73 53.8541721854 122% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 11.0289183223 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.9 12.2367328918 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.