The main topic of both the lecture and the passage is about the effects of private fossils collector. Considering this, the author claims that trading these valuable fossils should abolish. On the other hand, the professor utterly denies whatever mentioned in the passage through citing three reasons.
First, both the reading and the lecture talking about the accessibility of public to fossils. According to the lecture, the much public organization could not compete with the affluent in purchasing fossils, and as a result, people accessibility to them will dramatically decrease. The professor, nonetheless, supports the contradictory idea and states that thanks to the possibility of buying fossils, even low-level organizations can buy them and exhibit them to a large 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 owners have no knowledge and skills about keeping fossils, and fossils are likely to be spoiled. Nevertheless, the lecturer rebuts it and states, before putting these precious substances on the market, a group of scientists extract any vital information. Therefore, there is no need to wail!
Eventually, both the author and the lecture discuss the probability of destroying information. The author states that the owners will destroy some information. For example, a scientist can obtain information when a group of fossils finds together. Whereas, the lecturer reject it and explain, although some information may be lost, without these wealthy dealers we do not have as many fossils to research.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 84, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'fossils'' or 'fossil's'?
Suggestion: fossils'; fossil's
...passage is about the effects of private fossils collector. Considering this, the author...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Second
...and exhibit them to a large audience. second of all, both the passage and the lectur...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, so, therefore, whereas, for example, talking about, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1387.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 255.0 270.72406181 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.43921568627 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99608801488 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88443035714 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.56862745098 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 421.2 419.366225166 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.7798676446 49.2860985944 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.692307692 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6153846154 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.3076923077 7.06452816374 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.291006263979 0.272083759551 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100758744888 0.0996497079465 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0825703825328 0.0662205650399 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.166131956438 0.162205337803 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0356690023862 0.0443174109184 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.3589403974 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 53.8541721854 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.2367328918 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.28 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.