The reading and the lecture are both contradict with each other, in terms of theories related to the agnostids and their living style. The author of the article presents three theories about how agnostids have lived their lives. However, the lecturer casts doubt about the claim mentioned in the article and refutes all the theories presented in the article. He says that the theories are not practical and seems very weak.
First of all, according to the reading, the agnostids may have been a free swimmer who relied on smaller animals. On the contrary, the speaker negates the argument presented in the passage. Furthermore, he discusses that other predators who were free swimmers had large and well-developed eyes which allowed them to hunt the other animals. However, agnostids had very tiny eyes and some of them were totally blind. There are chances that they might have developed special sensory in order to detect the victims but there is no such evidence shows that agnostids have a special sensor.
Secondly, the author posits that since other arthropods were living on seafloor, agnostids might have dwelled on the seafloor. Although the lecturer refutes this by asserting that the animals who live in the seafloor cannot walk faster and they prefer to stay in a specific occupied area. Whereas, the agnostids were found in multiple areas which proved that agnostids can easily move from one place to another place. Thus, agnostids might have not lived in the seafloor.
Finally, it is mentioned in the article that agnostids might be parasites who feed on large organism due to other arthropods was found as parasites. On the other hand, the speaker believes that the population of parasites were not large, so they did not have the capability to kill the host where they lived on. On the contrary, the agnostids have a large population which is not a convincing theory about the agnostids are parasites.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 290, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whereas” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...er to stay in a specific occupied area. Whereas, the agnostids were found in multiple a...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, thus, well, whereas, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1610.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 320.0 270.72406181 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03125 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22948505376 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47105114273 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 145.348785872 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 500.4 419.366225166 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.6817530399 49.2860985944 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.625 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.9375 7.06452816374 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.510907334931 0.272083759551 188% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.178094538137 0.0996497079465 179% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.104456618706 0.0662205650399 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.317886120915 0.162205337803 196% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0812223716365 0.0443174109184 183% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.