The reading passage mentions that agnostid as a part of marine animals were feeding in the oceans in three different methods and makes three distinct hypothesis for it. The professor's lecture deals with the same issue. However, she states that the points provided in the article are not convincing and she provides three specific reasons to underscore her standpoint.
First, the author of the reading asserts that agnostids were hunted smaller animals and name them as swimming predators. Nevertheless, the lecturer refutes this view. She says that all of the hunting predators need large eyes which is a character helping predator do prey by watching sea-animals clearly. Actually, visibility is a kind of ability that do not exist in agnostids since neither fossilized remains nor other evidences prove this point. Also, they lack any kinds sensory which is another obligatory features of sea-predators.
Second, the article states that agnostides were sea floor dwellers by providing an example of promitive arthropods. Nonetheless, the professor repudiates this point. She mentions that such animal should have the ability to move fast and so far. In addition, their occupation should be vast too broad. The geographical niches of agnostides illustrates that they could not move fast since they were living only in near- distant niches.
Third, the lecturer states that agnostids were part of parastites community. Therefore, they were living and feeding in larger organisms. Albeit, the lecturer rebuts this point ad casts doubts on the population of agnostids. By the way, based on findings, parasites population should be limited to avoid hurting their living counterparts. The number of existed agnostids were found large that in another evidences they were non-parastites animals. The conclusion in this part is drawn by considering vast amount of fossilized in different individuals.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 151, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'hypothesis' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'hypotheses', 'hypothesises'.
Suggestion: hypotheses; hypothesises
...ferent methods and makes three distinct hypothesis for it. The professors lecture deals wi...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 182, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...cturer refutes this view. She says that all of the hunting predators need large eyes which...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, so, therefore, third, well, in addition, kind of, by the way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1614.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 294.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.48979591837 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14082457966 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81291488782 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.591836734694 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 491.4 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.4551863172 49.2860985944 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 84.9473684211 110.228320801 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.4736842105 21.698381199 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.15789473684 7.06452816374 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.27373068433 234% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.334479162548 0.272083759551 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0974211474829 0.0996497079465 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0805372605607 0.0662205650399 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.197376267068 0.162205337803 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0587412828968 0.0443174109184 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 47.79 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.2367328918 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.21 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 63.6247240618 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.