The main topic of both the lecture and the passage is about effects of private fossils collector. Considering this, the author claims that trading thease valuable fossils should be abolish. On the other hand, the professor utterly denies whatever mentioned in the passage through citing tree reasons.
First, both the reading and the lecture talk about accessibilty to fossils. According to the lecture, many public organization could not compete with the affluent in perchasing, and as a result, people accessiblity to them will dramatically decreas. The professor, nonetheless, support the contradictory idea and states that thanks to ability to buy fossiles, even low level organization can buy them and exhibit them to audience.
second of all, both the passage and the lecture discuss the issue of potential damages related to fossils. The reading goes on to mention that private owner have no knowledge and skills about keeping fossiles. Nevertheless, the lecturer rebut it and state, before putting these precious stuff on the market, a group of scientists extract any vital information. Therfore, there is no need to wail.
Eventually, both the author and the lecture discuss probability of destroying information. The author states that the owners will destroy some information. For example, scientist can obtain information when a group of fossils find to gether. Whereas, the lecturer reject it and explain, although some information may lost, without these wealthy dewlers we do not have as many fossiles to research.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 80, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'fossils'' or 'fossil's'?
Suggestion: fossils'; fossil's
...the passage is about effects of private fossils collector. Considering this, the author...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 182, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'abolished'?
Suggestion: abolished
...ading thease valuable fossils should be abolish. On the other hand, the professor utter...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Second
...uy them and exhibit them to audience. second of all, both the passage and the lectur...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n. Therfore, there is no need to wail. Eventually, both the author and the lect...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, so, whereas, for example, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 10.4613686534 29% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1298.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 239.0 270.72406181 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.4309623431 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.93187294222 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82458699575 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 145.348785872 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.602510460251 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 394.2 419.366225166 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => 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: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.5699823686 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.7142857143 110.228320801 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0714285714 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.71428571429 7.06452816374 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.240223624889 0.272083759551 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0769242225146 0.0996497079465 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0778588564844 0.0662205650399 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.135855229033 0.162205337803 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0662150401807 0.0443174109184 149% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.3 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.