TPO 43
The reading and the lecture discuss probable theories about the life of agnostics and their habits. The reading states three theories regarding this issue. However, from the lecturer's view, the mentioned theories have different weaknesses and they are not strong enough to be persuasive. Hence, she repudiates them all.
First, the reading states that the agnostics can be considered as free-swimming predators. On the contrary, the lecturer posits that other types of primitive arthropods had large well-developed eyes. Having eyes with such characteristics is essential to track the prey by swimming well. However, the agnostics had tiny and poor eyes and even sometimes they were blind. Therefore they can not be considered as free-swimming predators. They should have special organisms which were useful for following the prey effectively, while the remained fossils do not show this matter.
Secondly, the author claims that the agnostids have lived on the seafloor. The professor opposes this point by saying that, the agnostics were not able to move fast which is indispensable for seafloor dwellers. Since, the agnostics have moved slowly and localized in a special area, they could not go new areas. In fact, they just occupied small regions.
Finally, according to the article, it is likely that they were parasites who live and feed off larger organisms. In contrast, The lecturer argues that the population of the parasites is not very large. In fact, they have certain limits for expanding the population. However, the agnostics' population is very large. They were in a vast area. This assertion is based on the detected fossils which have had great size.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 370, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...yes and even sometimes they were blind. Therefore they can not be considered as free-swim...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 280, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'agnostics'' or 'agnostic's'?
Suggestion: agnostics'; agnostic's
... expanding the population. However, the agnostics population is very large. They were in ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, hence, however, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, while, even so, in contrast, in fact, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1416.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 266.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32330827068 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03850299372 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73763724713 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.571428571429 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 424.8 419.366225166 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.4239109301 49.2860985944 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 70.8 110.228320801 64% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.3 21.698381199 61% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.95 7.06452816374 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.27373068433 257% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.331896077726 0.272083759551 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0918826585621 0.0996497079465 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0636011283619 0.0662205650399 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.183473997846 0.162205337803 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.058514889745 0.0443174109184 132% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.3 13.3589403974 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.28 53.8541721854 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.69 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.2 10.498013245 69% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.