The main idea of both the passage and the lecture is about selling fossils in the commercial market. In this line of thought, the reading states that selling fossils to some fossil collector has some disadvantage such as data shortage for the public and scientists, and damaged fossils. The lecturer, on the other hand, casts doubt on all of the three episodes of arguments mentioned in the passage, believing that none of these strategies are practical and lead to the real world. In the rest of the passage, a comparison between them is provided.
First of all, the reading and the listening materials talk about public data shortage. The author explains that can make public hard to see their collections in the museum, as a result, it may decline by the public and make people favorable lessen. Thus, the author contends that sell each fossil may have some bad effect on the people. On the contrary, the lecturer believes that fossil hunters hold some fossils to sell them to the institution such as schools, library and etc. consequently, the public can go to this situation and watch fossils collections. This directly contradicts what the passage indicates.
Second, both the text and the talk discuss if fossils sell to the collectors, scientists may lose some valuable data about ancient. Therefore, the author elaborates that if someone can buy fossils, eventually he or she is a fossil expertise because finding whether one fossil is imitated or not, the buyer should have a powerful biologist. However, the lecturer notes that (Explanation). This was another place where experience contradicted the theory.
Eventually, fossil damaging is discussed by both the passage and the lecture. The author mentions that the valuable fossils damaged by commercial fossils collector because they are untrained and uninterested for carrying out the fossils. The lecturer rebuts this argument. The lecturer states that even if some fossils are destroyed, many fossils not discovered until now, and scientists and university institutions can lead them to improve their biological knowledge. This opinion directly contradicts the passage presented and making it infeasible.
Sum up, although the passage provides some reasons to don’t selling fossils to the fossil collectors, the lecture opposes about the effectiveness and possibility of those reasons.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 336, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...urer, on the other hand, casts doubt on all of the three episodes of arguments mentioned i...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 472, Rule ID: AND_ETC[1]
Message: Use simply 'etc.'.
Suggestion: etc.
...he institution such as schools, library and etc. consequently, the public can go to this...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 147, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'fossils'' or 'fossil's'?
Suggestion: fossils'; fossil's
... valuable fossils damaged by commercial fossils collector because they are untrained an...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 274, 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.
...ils. The lecturer rebuts this argument. The lecturer states that even if some fossi...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, however, if, may, second, so, therefore, thus, such as, as a result, first of all, on the contrary, 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: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 7.30242825607 233% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1995.0 1373.03311258 145% => OK
No of words: 374.0 270.72406181 138% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.33422459893 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3976220399 4.04702891845 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7722785955 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 145.348785872 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508021390374 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 611.1 419.366225166 146% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.23620309051 194% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 55.5594051444 49.2860985944 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.75 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.15 7.06452816374 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.466908288622 0.272083759551 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.14200862539 0.0996497079465 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.116550327149 0.0662205650399 176% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.287230159817 0.162205337803 177% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0631022927786 0.0443174109184 142% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.63 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 63.6247240618 151% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.