Both the passage and the lecture discuss the impact that private fossil collectors have on paleontology given that the market of petrified remains has become distinctively lucrative. The passage argues that said collectors deprive both scientist and the general public of important samples. However, the lecturer says that their impact is not that bad, and in fact, private collectors are more beneficial than harmful to paleontology.
First, the passage argues that private collecting will harm the interest that the general public has on fossils. The author notes that collectors will keep the remains for themselves instead of showing them in exhibition as a museum would. The lecturer challenges this point, he posits that the public will eventually have more exposure to fossils because now more fossils are being excavated in order to meet the collector's demand. Moreover, this also gives universities and museums more options from where to buy.
Second, the text claims that science will lose potential breakthroughs to private collectors. The article mentions that they pay exorbitant amounts of money in order to get the rarest fossils and museums simply cannot compete with them. The professor rebuts this argument. He points out that even if the fossils are going to collectors, they are always examined by scientists who can confirm their legitimacy, and get to study them as well.
Finally, the author of the text stands that commercial collectors destroy important scientific evidence when they unearth their samples. An example is given where scientists learnt about oviraptors from the position of fossils in the site. The professor in the lecture insists that if it were not for commercial interests, science would not get to study as many fossils as it can today. Moreover, he suggests that missing out on some occasional details is a small price to pay for the substance of samples available.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 255, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...llectors deprive both scientist and the general public of important samples. However, the lect...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 83, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...lecting will harm the interest that the general public has on fossils. The author notes that c...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, well, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 12.0772626932 157% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1617.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 306.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28431372549 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18244613648 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65781924915 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.532679738562 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 488.7 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.8715262828 49.2860985944 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.8 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 7.06452816374 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.442776788197 0.272083759551 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.131138379426 0.0996497079465 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0751580337935 0.0662205650399 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.262343545952 0.162205337803 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0430321633979 0.0443174109184 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.3589403974 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.