top47 integrated
the reading claim that Pterosaurs were an ancient group of winged reptiles that capable of powered flight. However, the lecturer finds all the ideas questionable and presents some evidence to refute them all.
First, the author argues that point out that since modern reptiles are cold-blooded like pterosaurs. And cold-blooded animals typically have a slow metabolism and are unable to produce a lot of energy. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that the researchers studied in Pterosaurs fossils that they are body are dense and Pterosaurs metabolism is warm-blooded, as a result, they had enabled energy for flight.
Furthermore, the reading passage holds the view that Pterosaurs were high-weight and this function cause they did not stay in the air. In contrast, the professor underlines the fact that Pterosaurs anatomy was hallow instead of solid and they had light-weight bones and flight by flapping wings.
Finally, the reading asserts that Pterosaurs could not take off from the ground. They would not have jumped from their legs or ran to gain speed. On the contrary, the speaking dismisses this issue due to the fact that the different important between birds and Pterosaurs are a number of limbs. The Pterosaurs walked on four limbs on the ground. The researchers studied for the Pterosaurs flight, therefore, they had no problem for flight if used all of their legs.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
the reading claim that Pterosaurs were an a...
^^^
Line 5, column 211, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'hallowed'.
Suggestion: hallowed
...es the fact that Pterosaurs anatomy was hallow instead of solid and they had light-wei...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, so, therefore, in contrast, as a result, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => 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: 1174.0 1373.03311258 86% => OK
No of words: 226.0 270.72406181 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19469026549 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.87727950738 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71953684447 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 133.0 145.348785872 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.588495575221 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 339.3 419.366225166 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.0142095385 49.2860985944 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.8333333333 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8333333333 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.16666666667 7.06452816374 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => 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: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 53.0 63.6247240618 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.