The reading passage and the lecture are both about a marine animal called Agnostide, which became extinct many years ago. More specifically, the writer discusses they looked like some modern insects, but there are no firm witnesses to prove their exact behaviors. The lecturer in the listening passage disagrees with all mentioned hypotheses in the reading and provides some evidence to refute them.
First of all, the author begins by stating that the agnostids could have been in the category of free-swimming predators as long as they were vigorous swimmers. The lecturer, however, disagrees. He declares that the free-swimming predators possess well-developed eyesight in order to find their preys, but the agnostids had weak eyes which were virtually blind. Therefore, it is not possible for them the ability to search for food in the open oceans.
Furthermore, the author claims that the agnostids may have attributed to the seafloor dwellers, which they are a type of initial arthropods feed on the dead organisms or bacteria. Again, the lecturer believes there are some flaws in the writer's argument. The speaker holds that these kinds of dwellers are not able to move very agile and within long distances. Actually, they mostly localize their environment and live in a small area. In contrast, the agnostids dwelled in a large extent with the power of fast movement; thus, they could transfer to the far distances.
Lastly, the article mentioned that another possibility attributed to agnostids which they were parasites like some entity animals. These species feed on the larger organisms. In turn, the professor in the listening passage is doubtful that this is accurate. He states that parasites animals naturally do not exist in a vast population. Conversely, the agnostids dwelled in the populated area. By considering this fact, this theory rules out the approach of agnostids.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 237, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...er believes there are some flaws in the writers argument. The speaker holds that these ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, conversely, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, look, may, so, therefore, thus, well, in contrast, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1593.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 303.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25742574257 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17215713816 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74246106688 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.587458745875 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 501.3 419.366225166 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.1281114908 49.2860985944 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.5 110.228320801 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.8333333333 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.27777777778 7.06452816374 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.351530774494 0.272083759551 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0896704819016 0.0996497079465 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0851564183964 0.0662205650399 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192953137467 0.162205337803 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0774585428964 0.0443174109184 175% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.93 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.17 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 63.6247240618 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.