TPO 39
The main topic of the reading and the lecture is about a mass-extinction at the end of the Triassic period. The writer claims that there are three possible theories about why this event happened. However, the lecturer asserts that the explanation provided in the passage might be plausible, yet not sufficient. She, then, opposes each of them.
Firstly, the first theory in the article states that a decline in the sea level might have destroyed some shallow-ocean species habitat, leading to a decrease in resources of the whole food chains. In contrast, the lecturer argues that the gradual change of sea-level would have provided coastal animals with sufficient time to adapt themselves. In her opinion, the fluctuation of sea-level had to happen abruptly in order to destroy the shallow-ocean species.
Secondly, the reading avers that the mass-extinction happened because volcanic activities at that time produced lots of SO2 in the atmosphere, leading to a universal climate cooling. On the contrary, the speaker rejects this idea by holding the view that this explanation is true if only the sulfur dioxide would have remained in the air for a long period of time. However, most of the SO2 would have fallen back to the Earth as rain.
Thirdly, it is mentioned in the article that an asteroid strike on the Earth could have produced a lot of debris in the atmosphere, preventing the sunlight to reach the plants to grow, and therefore, the dependent animals to this vegetation died out. In contrast, the lecturer counters this idea by proving that the only crater found on the Earth was dated back to years before the mass-extinction. As a result, an asteroid hit could not have caused the animals' extermination.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 308, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had remained'?
Suggestion: had remained
...tion is true if only the sulfur dioxide would have remained in the air for a long period of time. H...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 350, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...uld have remained in the air for a long period of time. However, most of the SO2 would have fa...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 455, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'animals'' or 'animal's'?
Suggestion: animals'; animal's
... asteroid hit could not have caused the animals extermination.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, in contrast, as a result, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 30.3222958057 145% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1443.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 286.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04545454545 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11236361783 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8438355019 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552447552448 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 437.4 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.0324332904 49.2860985944 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.0 110.228320801 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 21.698381199 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.61538461538 7.06452816374 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 4.33554083885 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => 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: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.98 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
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.