Both the reading and the lecture discuss the dinosaurs’ unlikeliness to be endotherms –a condition in which an animal always keeps a constant internal temperature°. The author believes that despite dinosaurs’ kinship with modern reptiles, they were endotherms. The professor brings into question the claims made in the lecture. He considers that there are some problems with the author’s arguments.
First, the author presents the idea that some dinosaurs lived in polar regions where only animals which can maintain a constant temperature could survive. However, the professor argues that those polar regions were warmer than today, and also dinosaur species may have migrated or hibernated in the cold season. Therefore, they were not necessarily endotherms.
Second, the author contends that the dinosaurs’ legs were underneath the animal’s body as modern endotherms species, this provided them with skills such as running. The professor rebuts this argument by pointing out that these species had their legs under their bodies because they had more weight and large sizes, so it is not accurate to say that just for their leg’s position they are endotherms.
Finally, the author states that dinosaurs had bone structures called Harvesian canals which allow the animal to increase its size rapidly. The professor, on the other hand, posits that they actually had Harvesian canals, but not for maintaining the temperature, they had these canals because they needed to their growth ring, which indicated when they grew rapidly, they did not grow, or they grew slowly. As the endotherm species just grow rapidly, dinosaurs could not be an endotherm.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 108, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'endotherms'' or 'endotherm's'?
Suggestion: endotherms'; endotherm's
...rneath the animal's body as modern endotherms species, this provided them with skills...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, however, may, second, so, therefore, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 18.0 30.3222958057 59% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1435.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 259.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.54054054054 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01166760082 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80285479309 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.602316602317 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 427.5 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.6163089483 49.2860985944 133% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.583333333 110.228320801 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5833333333 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.33333333333 7.06452816374 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.400909824857 0.272083759551 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.153308604249 0.0996497079465 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0850200212212 0.0662205650399 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.243406415602 0.162205337803 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0174061310853 0.0443174109184 39% => 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: 15.5 13.3589403974 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 53.8541721854 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.85 12.2367328918 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.25 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.