The article gives three different theories about how agnostids may have lived: Free-swimming predators, Seafloor Dwellers, and Parasites. However, the professor denies all of these three possibilities.
First of all, the article states that agnostids might have been free-swimming predators since it is known that other types of primitive antropods were strong swimmers and active predators. Nevertheless, the professor disagrees with this hypothesis. she points out that most predators have well developed eye to track the prey, while agnostids have tiny developed eye and was lack of other relative function. Thus, it is unlikely to be free-swimming predators.
In addition, the professor disputes the second theory: Seafloor Dweller. Although there are several examples of other types of anthropods lived in this way, the professor says that basically the dweller would stay stably and don’t move fast. However, the wide-spread fossilized evidence shows that the agnostids had an ability to cross large distance to move from one area to another. Thus the second scenario is inconsistent.
Finally, the article points out that many modern-days anthropods such as flea, ticks exist as parasite, and gives the third living way of agnostids: parasite. The professor points out that generally the population of parasite should not be too large since too many number of parasites would kill the host. However, the evidence shows that there are large fossilized individuals which contradicts the previous assumption. Thus, the last theory is invalid, either.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nies all of these three possibilities. First of all, the article states that ag...
^^^
Line 2, column 252, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: She
...ofessor disagrees with this hypothesis. she points out that most predators have wel...
^^^
Line 3, column 392, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...tance to move from one area to another. Thus the second scenario is inconsistent. ...
^^^^
Line 4, column 261, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun number seems to be countable; consider using: 'many numbers'.
Suggestion: many numbers
...asite should not be too large since too many number of parasites would kill the host. Howev...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, so, third, thus, well, while, in addition, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1331.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 237.0 270.72406181 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.61603375527 5.08290768461 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.92362132708 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83892567918 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.599156118143 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 404.1 419.366225166 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.3964681547 49.2860985944 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.0714285714 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.9285714286 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.57142857143 7.06452816374 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.363550595773 0.272083759551 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100238294403 0.0996497079465 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103130949407 0.0662205650399 156% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.204846003756 0.162205337803 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0883402096374 0.0443174109184 199% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 13.3589403974 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.02 12.2367328918 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.