Both the reading and the lecture are about commercial fossil collectors. The writer states that the results of selling fossils to the collectors is bad for both scientists and society and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor refutes each ot the authors reasons made in the reading.
First, the article states that general public lose access to see the fossils since collector already bought the fossil. The professor refutes this point by stating result of commercial fossil increase the public access to the fossils. He states some public places such as library, school can by these fossils and shows to the public.
Second, the author claims that scientist do not have a chance to analyze the fossils because some collector might bought the fossil already. On the other hand, the professor states this idea not realistic. He states, when fossil found, first scientist analyze the fossil after the collector can by the fossil. Every fossil first analyzed by the scientist. So, scientist not miss anything.
Third, the writer states that the collectors frequently remove precious scientific facts from fossils. Contrary to this claim, the professor states many there are not valuable study going on in order to collect these informations. She states it is better to find than being undiscoverd.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 32, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...ding. First, the article states that general public lose access to see the fossils since co...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, second, so, third, such as, 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: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 5.01324503311 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1113.0 1373.03311258 81% => OK
No of words: 212.0 270.72406181 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.81578560438 4.04702891845 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43700902623 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 120.0 145.348785872 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.566037735849 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 326.7 419.366225166 78% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.6104413878 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 79.5 110.228320801 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.1428571429 21.698381199 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.64285714286 7.06452816374 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
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: 0.435138017492 0.272083759551 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.166075595566 0.0996497079465 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.126894636182 0.0662205650399 192% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.26287768813 0.162205337803 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.133836718676 0.0443174109184 302% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 13.3589403974 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 53.8541721854 120% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 11.0289183223 73% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.58 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.96 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 48.0 63.6247240618 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.