Based on the set of materials, both author and speaker discuss the possibility of existence of bees from 200 million years ago. The author states that it is impossible for bees to be existed in that period of time due to a three reasons, while the lecturer casts doubt on this idea and gives several counterarguments in response.
Initially, the author puts forward the idea that because fossils of actual bees are not found so far, we cannot say anything about them. On the contrary, the lecturer rejects this thesis by clarifying that may be there is no way to preserve bees’ fossils on that time. Fossils need some kind of substance from special tree that is rare 200 million years ago to form, so the absence of these kind of trees which called Resen, is not prove that bees are not existed.
Second, the author posits that bees and flowering plants have a close biological relationship and owing to the fact that flowering plants are not existed 200 million years ago, hence, bees are not existed too. Yet again, the lecturer repudiates this idea. As she says there is a possibility that bees feed on non-flowering plants that time. According to the evolution theory, bees could eat the other plants like fern and after the presence of flowering plants, they evolved, then they built the stable relationship.
The last idea proposes in the reading is the structures found as a bees’ nest are don’t have particular features like spiral pattern. On the other hand, the lecturer states that chemical evidence found in analyzing of fossils show the similarity in what found in modern bees’ nest. There is water-proofing materials that bees use to protect themselves, and it is specific, so it reveals that bees are existed 200 million years ago.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 200, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...possible for bees to be existed in that period of time due to a three reasons, while the lectu...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 331, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s several counterarguments in response. Initially, the author puts forward the i...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 391, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this kind' or 'these kinds'?
Suggestion: this kind; these kinds
...on years ago to form, so the absence of these kind of trees which called Resen, is not pro...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 438, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'proved', 'proven'.
Suggestion: proved; proven
...ind of trees which called Resen, is not prove that bees are not existed. Second, t...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 257, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ain, the lecturer repudiates this idea. As she says there is a possibility that be...
^^
Line 7, column 342, Rule ID: USE_TO_VERB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
...e is water-proofing materials that bees use to protect themselves, and it is specif...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
hence, if, may, second, so, then, while, kind of, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1477.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 301.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 4.90697674419 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6098074259 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.518272425249 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 450.0 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.5485089401 49.2860985944 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.083333333 110.228320801 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0833333333 21.698381199 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06452816374 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.0610262497889 0.272083759551 22% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.02759208275 0.0996497079465 28% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0215316763679 0.0662205650399 33% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0430668066814 0.162205337803 27% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0197817437396 0.0443174109184 45% => 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: 14.2 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.