TPO-24 - Integrated Writing Task Animal fossils usually provide very little opportunity to study the actual animal tissues, because in fossils the animals' living tissues have been largely replaced by minerals. Thus, scientists were very excited recently

The reading passage and listenning both discuss about R. robustus is a dinasour hunter or not. The reading passage claims that R. robustus is not a dinasour hunter and brings up several reasons for this claim. However, the professor casts doubt on this claim and refutes each of the reasons.

First of all, the reading passage explains that R. robustus had not able to hunt any dinasours because when you compare the size of R. robustus with dinasours, it was much smaller than dinasours. Nevertheless, the professors opposes this concept by explaining that size of R. robustus is not prove that it could not hunt baby dinasours or similar sized dinasours. The professors, on the other hand asserts that the size of R. robustus was twice of baby dinasours. Therefore, it could easly hunt baby dinasours.

Secondly, the reading passage states that the legs of R. robustus was small for hunting and much more designed for scavenging. By contrast, the professor points out that having small leg doesn't mean that R. robustus is not a hunter. In other words, she gives the example of Tasmania Devil which has modern animal with short legs. She says that Tasmania Devil can run 15 km/h due to short legs so this makes it very quick and successful hunter. So, according to the proffessor, Tasmania Devil's aspects could be assumed for R. robutstus.

Finally, the reading passage assets that the dinasours bones which are found in stomachs of robusus has not a teeth marks so it would not eaten by R. robustus. In contrary, the professors refutes this claim by believing that R. robustus has powerful jams and do not use their teeth for jewing. She states that R. robustus ate their hunts as a big and shallow pieces. That's why, the tooth marks should not be expected on the bones.

Average: 0.3 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 293, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'proved', 'proven'.
Suggestion: proved; proven
...laining that size of R. robustus is not prove that it could not hunt baby dinasours o...
Line 5, column 188, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...fessor points out that having small leg doesnt mean that R. robustus is not a hunter. ...
Line 5, column 271, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
...r. In other words, she gives the example of Tasmania Devil which has modern anima...
Line 7, column 109, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a tooth' or simply 'teeth'?
Suggestion: a tooth; teeth found in stomachs of robusus has not a teeth marks so it would not eaten by R. robus...
Line 7, column 368, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: That's
...heir hunts as a big and shallow pieces. Thats why, the tooth marks should not be expe...

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, first of all, in other words, on the other hand

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => 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: 1475.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 307.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.80456026059 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44757009496 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508143322476 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 427.5 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => 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: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 13.0662251656 199% => OK
Sentence length: 11.0 21.2450331126 52% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 27.3942290817 49.2860985944 56% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 56.7307692308 110.228320801 51% => More chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 11.8076923077 21.698381199 54% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 4.76923076923 7.06452816374 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 19.0 4.27373068433 445% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.072970280273 0.272083759551 27% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0204449225681 0.0996497079465 21% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0188074040448 0.0662205650399 28% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0447700772249 0.162205337803 28% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0240096284846 0.0443174109184 54% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 7.1 13.3589403974 53% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 77.23 53.8541721854 143% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 5.2 11.0289183223 47% => Flesch kincaid grade is low.
coleman_liau_index: 9.67 12.2367328918 79% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.27 8.42419426049 86% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 4.0 10.7273730684 37% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 6.4 10.498013245 61% => OK
text_standard: 7.0 11.2008830022 62% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?

It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.

Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.