tpo 31
In this set of materials, the reading section mainly discusses to reject the idea that Sinosauropteryx was a kind of dinosaur which had feathers, while the reading part casts doubt on what mentioned in the text by refusing the reasons presented in the reading passage.
First of all, the article posits that the evidences in the fossil is more likely to appear after they buried. In contrast the lecture underlines the fact that these are not the remains of the decomposition process, because there were not any other decomposition remains from other animals in that site. In fact, she points out that evidence leads us to the mechanically ash which indicates that the lines were functioned as feather for them.
Furthermore, the professor disagrees with the idea that the lines surrounding the skeleton is a part of fossilizing process rather than to be a sign of existing of feather in Sinosauropteryx, and implied that there is radical difference between the chemical composition of feather and frill. She elaborates that analysis reveals that feather has protein composition, whereas the frill does not consist of protein. Since in the analysis of the remain of line there are protein, we can admit that they were feathers.
Finally, although the location of lines in the body strongly proves that they did not have feathers, the speaker subscribes the view that feather have other functions rather than flying or keeping warm. In fact, she provides an example of a kind of animal which has a feather to elaborate this issue. According to the lecture this bird has feather, however it cannot fly. She elaborates that how this animal take advantage of its feather to attract for mating, so easily demonstrates that the feather displays other functions rather than which mentioned in the text. As a result, she strongly believes that used theses limb as a feather when they were alive.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 54, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'discusses rejecting'.
Suggestion: discusses rejecting
...f materials, the reading section mainly discusses to reject the idea that Sinosauropteryx was a kin...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 113, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[2]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: contrast,
... likely to appear after they buried. In contrast the lecture underlines the fact that th...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 439, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...st of protein. Since in the analysis of the remain of line there are protein, we can admit...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 340, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'feathered'.
Suggestion: feathered
... According to the lecture this bird has feather, however it cannot fly. She elaborates ...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 606, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... As a result, she strongly believes that used theses limb as a feather when they ...
^^^^
Line 4, column 615, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'theses'' or 'thesis's'?
Suggestion: theses'; thesis's
...ult, she strongly believes that used theses limb as a feather when they were alive....
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, furthermore, however, if, so, whereas, while, in contrast, in fact, kind of, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 21.0 12.0772626932 174% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 22.412803532 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1578.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 315.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00952380952 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69798315909 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 145.348785872 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.539682539683 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 489.6 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 21.2450331126 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 69.0643822016 49.2860985944 140% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.5 110.228320801 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.25 21.698381199 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.83333333333 7.06452816374 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More 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: 0.296193143512 0.272083759551 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.103978971534 0.0996497079465 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0576433094417 0.0662205650399 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.170183601228 0.162205337803 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0398264887946 0.0443174109184 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 13.3589403974 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 53.8541721854 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.0289183223 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.498013245 118% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.