tpo 43 how agnostids lived and they behaved
The material discusses how agnostids ate and how they behaved. While the reading suggests three theories about that, the listening challenges this and claims that each one of these three theories has a serious weakness.
First, the author states that since agnostids were a type of primitive arthropods, they might be free-swimming predators. On the other hand, the professor opposes this and points out that swimming arthropods have the ability to catch prey, given that they have large and well-developed eyes. The lecturer adds that agnostids had poorly developed eyes even some of them were completely blind. according to the lecture, if agnostids were free-swimming predators, they should have other sensor organs that helped them be to catch their food. The speaker says that there is no evidence about sensor organs in their fossils. Thus, that rolled out this hypothesis.
Second, the writer states that agnostids were seafloor dwellers like many types of primitive arthropods. On the contrary, the lecturer encounters this and brings up that seafloor dwellers could not move fast, so they stay in a localized area and occupy a small geographic area. Nevertheless, agnostids inhabited large geographic areas, and there were large distances between these areas. The speaker concludes that agnostids could move very fast to occupy all these areas, so they could not be seafloor dwellers.
Third, the reading cites that agnostids might be parasites like many modern arthropods. Conversely, the professor contradicts this and contends that the parasites population could not be large and should stay within a certain limit, so they could not kill off the host. However, the lecturer states that the agnostids population was large because they found a vast amount of fossils of individuals. Hence, that rolled out this theory.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 393, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: According
...ven some of them were completely blind. according to the lecture, if agnostids were free-...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 154, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'parasites'' or 'parasite's'?
Suggestion: parasites'; parasite's
... contradicts this and contends that the parasites population could not be large and shoul...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, first, hence, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, third, thus, well, while, even so, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 22.412803532 165% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => 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: 1547.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 289.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35294117647 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62874229164 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.519031141869 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 457.2 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => 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: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.9861039847 49.2860985944 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.6875 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0625 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.375 7.06452816374 119% => 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: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.415243267807 0.272083759551 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.140225527997 0.0996497079465 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0939765681321 0.0662205650399 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.233621780534 0.162205337803 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0828303163365 0.0443174109184 187% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.45 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.