TPO 39 - mass-extinction
Both the author and the lecturer discuss reasons of mass-extinction in about 200 million years ago, at the end of the Triassic period. The author proposes the idea that there are some possibilities. However, the lecturer casts some serious doubt on this notion and provides a number of counter-arguments in response.
To begin with, the author stated that at the end of the Triassic period, sea levels were fluctuating. The writer asserts that this sudden decrease in sea levels could destroy coastal and shallow-ocean species. On the contrary, the lecturer clarifies that also sea levels decreased in that period, but it did not take action suddenly. It took several million years, and in this relatively long period, species have been capable of some adaption.
Moreover, the reading and the lecture were at odds in another point. The reading put forward the idea that the cold climate at the end of Triassic could hurt the population. The author illustrates that because of massive volcanic actions, a considerable amount of sulfur dioxide was released into the atmosphere. This change could gradually lower the temperature and led to the extinction. However, the lecturer asserts that sulfur dioxide can combine with water in the atmosphere and this way, it could have cleared.
Finally, the writer of the article explained the last thesis, which was about asteroid strike. In the writer’s opinion, large amounts of soil and crushed rock released into the atmosphere by asteroids collided with earth could block sunlight for many months. This period is long enough for most plants to extinct, and therefore many animals died of starvation. Yet again, the lecturer repudiates this one too. As she said, very few scientists believe that this asteroid strike took place. However, these scientists expect that asteroid action at the end of Triassic has been done 12 million years before mass-extinction. Therefore, it could not be possible to be the reason.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-09-17 | Mamalhastam | 3 | view |
- TPO 39 mass extinction 27
- TPO 50 3
- TPO 38 3
- TPO 38 3
- Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they respond to the specific concerns presented in the reading passage.Scientists are considering the possibility of sending humans to Mars in the coming decades. Although there have been 60
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, moreover, so, therefore, on the contrary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1657.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 317.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22712933754 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21953715646 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75348245953 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548895899054 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 498.6 419.366225166 119% => 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: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.9605235198 49.2860985944 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.2105263158 110.228320801 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.6842105263 21.698381199 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.63157894737 7.06452816374 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.050867887673 0.272083759551 19% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0154500776869 0.0996497079465 16% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0386650762858 0.0662205650399 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0368307441318 0.162205337803 23% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0393854907807 0.0443174109184 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 13.3589403974 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => 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.