TPO 43
Both the reading and the lecture discuss whether agnostids are primitive arthropods-relatives of modern-day insect. The reading implies that agnostids are relatives of modern-day insect based on three theories. However, the professor strongly disagrees with the reading. Accordingly, she gave three refutations.
First, the reading passage mentions that agnostids may have been free-swimming predators. Yet, the lecturer severely contradicts this statement by arguing that agnostids had undeveloped eyes. In fact, the free-swimming predators rely on eyes to catch preys, but agnostids were almost blind. Moreover, if agnostids were predators, they might have had some special organs to help them catch preys. However, they did not have any special organs. As a result, agnostids were not free-swimming predators.
Secondly, the passage suggests that agnostids may have dwelled on the seafloor. Nevertheless, the scholar seriously challenges this hypothesis by contending that animals living on the seafloor always do not have the ability to move fast. Furthermore, the animals living in the seafloor usually stay at same places. Actually, agnostids lived in multiple areas, which means that they can easily move from one place to another. Hence, agnostics may not have dwelled on the seafloor.
Last but not least, the reading indicates that there are many species of modern-day arthropods existing as parasites. Once again, the speaker opposes this theory that the population of the parasites is always small so they will not kill all preys. Nevertheless, the population of the agnostics is very big. In other words, the third theory is not convincing at all.
In conclusion, the professor argues against each theory in the reading passage. That is to say, she maintains that agnostics are not the primitive arthropods-relatives.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, actually, but, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, third, well, in conclusion, in fact, as a result, in other words, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1567.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 278.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.63669064748 5.08290768461 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08399275855 2.5805825403 120% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.561151079137 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 466.2 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 13.0662251656 161% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.3792929994 49.2860985944 60% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 74.619047619 110.228320801 68% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.2380952381 21.698381199 61% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.47619047619 7.06452816374 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.27373068433 211% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.486495972221 0.272083759551 179% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.131370256742 0.0996497079465 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0915226638752 0.0662205650399 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.210407265725 0.162205337803 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.120086032558 0.0443174109184 271% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.82 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.54 12.2367328918 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.6 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.2 10.498013245 69% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.