The Reading and the lecture are both about the fossil’s private acquisition which has been growing into some big businesses in recent years. The author believes that this is stunting the development for both scientists and the general public. The professor brings into question the claims made in the article. She considers that these arguments are exaggerated and the advantages are more valuable than the disadvantages.
First, the author comes up with the idea that the people will no longer be attracted by museums because all the fossils will be sold to particular individuals. It is mentioned that private collectors will not permit the public to observe their collections. However, the professor argues that not all the fossils will be sold and there will be more of them available to the public in some places such as libraries.
Second, the author states that scientists will lose the access to some pivotal information, missing some important clues about crucial discoveries. The article notes that wealthy buyers have the advantage of getting the most unusual fossils, therefore average people or public business could not afford and compete for these fossils. Meanwhile, the professor rebuts this argument by pointing out that those fossils need at first to pass through some scientific experiment s in order to get their value. As a result, no clues will be lost.
Finally, The author contends that commercial fossils buyers will weaken the value of the fossil’s evidence. Thus there will be a lost documentation about the past of some creatures. The professor, on the other hand, posits that there are some undiscovered creatures which have not been studied up to now, and consequently fossils even sold will not count as more evidence.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 233, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...development for both scientists and the general public. The professor brings into question the...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 249, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...both scientists and the general public. The professor brings into question the clai...
^^^
Line 7, column 114, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...he value of the fossil's evidence. Thus there will be a lost documentation abou...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, first, however, if, second, so, therefore, thus, while, even so, such as, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1487.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 285.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21754385965 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72861110449 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.557894736842 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 452.7 419.366225166 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => 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: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.3080161399 49.2860985944 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.214285714 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3571428571 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.42857142857 7.06452816374 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.362331224073 0.272083759551 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.122879191398 0.0996497079465 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0692321734512 0.0662205650399 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.227086658188 0.162205337803 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0182863469597 0.0443174109184 41% => 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: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.78 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.