The author describes that there is solid evidence that dinosaurs were endotherms, and provides three reasons to support this claim. On the other hand, the lecturer states that there are some problems with this argument that dinosaurs were endotherms and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First of all, the writer states that as dinosaurs’ fossils have been discovered in Polar Regions, they were endotherms. Nevertheless, the professor points out that although it was true that fossils of the dinosaurs were found in the Polar Regions, but they lived there many years ago during the time which was warmer than today. Furthermore, she says that when Polar Regions was really cold, dinosaurs migrated to warmer regions, or they hibernated like modern reptiles.
Second, according to the reading passage, dinosaurs were endotherms, since their legs like all modern endotherms were underneath the body. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that legs of the dinosaurs were underneath the body not for the sake of running, and there are other explanations for this. To be more specific, dinosaurs should be able to bear super more weight than other reptiles, so their legs grew very large at their body's sides; therefore, it was not feasible for dinosaurs to have large legs underneath their bodies.
Third, the author expresses that because dinosaurs had Haversian canals in their bone's structures as endotherms, they were endotherms. However, the speaker posits that although dinosaurs had Haversian canals in their bone structures, they also had growth rings which thickened their bones. Investigating the growth ring, helps researchers to find that these rings did not grow uniformly. In other words, their growth pattern was rapid, slow and rapid again. As a matter of fact, if dinosaurs were endotherms, they would have had constant body temperatures and grew rapidly in cool situations as well as in warmer situations.
Therefore, the points in the reading do not make sense.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, first, furthermore, however, if, nevertheless, really, second, so, therefore, third, well, as a matter of fact, as well as, first of all, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => 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: 1679.0 1373.03311258 122% => OK
No of words: 318.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27987421384 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22286093782 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6495329626 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 145.348785872 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.534591194969 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 495.9 419.366225166 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.0395238366 49.2860985944 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.928571429 110.228320801 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7142857143 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.8571428571 7.06452816374 196% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.467845002021 0.272083759551 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.167371385079 0.0996497079465 168% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0932877919329 0.0662205650399 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.219359142262 0.162205337803 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.118343631141 0.0443174109184 267% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.3589403974 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.64 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.