TPO 39
The main idea of both the passage and the lecture is about possible explanations for a mass extinction that happened around 200 million years ago. In this line of thought, the reading states three possible speculations about the reason for this extinction. The lecturer, on the other hand, categorically denies all the three episodes of argument mentioned in the passage, believing that although these statements may seem plausible, they are fallacious in fact.
First, both the reading and listening materials talk about the decline of sea levels. In this vein, the reading mentions that the mass extinction initiated by a fall in sea levels that destroyed coastal and shallow-water species habitat and influenced the food chain dramatically. Conversely, the lecturer asserts that although scientists agree with the fluctuations in sea levels in that period, it cannot explain the mass extinction. She mentions that not only the fishes and coastal species were able to adapt to these changes in their habitat but also fluctuations were happening gradually and they must occur suddenly to cause a mass calamity like that.
Second, both the text and the talk put forth the idea of massive climate change. Having this in mind, the author expresses the notion that the proportion of sulfur dioxide increased in the earth atmosphere as a result of a widespread volcanic activity and caused a drop in global temperature. However, the speaker opposes this argument citing that although sulphuric dioxide can decrease the atmosphere temperature, this molecular structure in the atmosphere combines with hydrogen dioxide quickly and fall back to the surface with rainfalls.
Eventually, both the passage and the lecture discuss the idea of asteroid strikes. While the author believes that the mass extinction may have resulted when a massive asteroid collided the earth and its consequential debris layer blocked the sunlight from reaching to the plants, the lecturer refutes this notion. Accordingly, she explains that the crater of the asteroid strike related to that period belongs at least to twelve million years before the time that mass extinction initiated and this is far enough time before the extinctions to have anything about it.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, conversely, first, however, may, second, so, while, at least, in fact, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 44.0 30.3222958057 145% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1892.0 1373.03311258 138% => OK
No of words: 354.0 270.72406181 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34463276836 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33761313653 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7334767329 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 145.348785872 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.536723163842 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 571.5 419.366225166 136% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 21.2450331126 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 62.303703576 49.2860985944 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.538461538 110.228320801 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.2307692308 21.698381199 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.61538461538 7.06452816374 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => 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: 17.3 13.3589403974 130% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 53.8541721854 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.99 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.39 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 63.6247240618 156% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.498013245 122% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.