In this set of materials, the reading and the listening are both discussing Pterosaurs wherein the reading states that Pterosaurs were able to fly or able to glide, and it provides three reasons opposed to powered flight. However, the professor explains that the arguments presented by the author are unbelievable. Moreover, he refutes each of the author's points.
First, the writer claims that powered flight reptiles require a lot of energy. Furthermore, since Pterosaurs were cold-blooded, they would not have been able to generate energy. The professor refutes this point by saying that pterosaurs were warm-blooded reptiles since they had hairs or furs like warm-blooded animals. Therefore, they would have been able to generate the energy needed to fly.
Secondly, the author of the reading says that pterosaurs were large reptiles. Hence, they were not capable of flight by flapping their wings too fast. However, the lecturer of the listening says that since pterosaurs had many hollows inside their bones, they had light bones that helped them to fly.
Finally, the reading states that reptiles needed powered muscles to take off from the ground. Since the pterosaurs had not have powered muscles in their legs, they would not have been able to fly. The professor opposes this point by explaining that pterosaurs had four legs to use them for taking off from the ground. Considering this argument, Pterosaurs could not fly is contradicted.
In conclusion, the points that made in the lecture contrast with the reading. The first, second and third points in the lecture demonstrate that Pterosaurs were not powered flight is in doubt.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 51, Rule ID: NEEDS_FIXED[1]
Message: "needed powered" is only accepted in certain dialects. For something more widely acceptable, try 'powering' or 'to be powered'.
Suggestion: powering; to be powered
...the reading states that reptiles needed powered muscles to take off from the ground. Si...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 124, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'had'.
Suggestion: had
...he ground. Since the pterosaurs had not have powered muscles in their legs, they wou...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1384.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 265.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22264150943 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03470204552 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6047414116 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 123.0 145.348785872 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.464150943396 0.540411800872 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 407.7 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.342237094 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.5 110.228320801 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.5625 21.698381199 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.75 7.06452816374 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => 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: 11.4 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.7 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.59 8.42419426049 90% => OK
difficult_words: 53.0 63.6247240618 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => 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.