In the passage, it mainly talks about some theories about how agnostids behave. The writer illustrates that the agnostids are free-swimming predators, seafloor dwellers, and maybe they were parasites. But the speakers reckons that these theories all have serious weakness, and develops her perspectives in the lecture.
First of all, the author proposes that the agnostids may once been free-swimming because other arthropods were good at swimming and they are predators, hence, we can say agnostids preys in the sea as well. However, the lecturer pointed our that in order to hunt in the sea. the predators has to have large, well-developed eyes, they will need a great vision to capture the prey. But the agnostids only have tiny, poor eyes, while other arthropods have strong vision, agnostids are almost blind. Therefore, agnostids can not be predators, unless they develop some special sensory to help themsevles, which they do not have according to the fossils.
Second, the passage says that the agnostids might lived on the seafloor, because other arthropods living like that, and they can make a living by scaverning dead organisms or by grazing on bacteria. But, the speaker rebuts that the seafloor dwellers usually can not move very fast, so they will stay in local area instead of spreading to a new place. However, many anostids live in multiple geometry areas, this means they can move fast, and across long distance, which makes them very much unlikely to be seafloor dweller.
Third, the author demonstrates that the agnostids are possible were parasites. The women in the lecture retorts this theory by showing that the polulation of parasites normally will not be very large, because if their numbers are large, they will jeopardize the life of their host. But the populations of many agnostids, on the other side, are actually quite large, so this thoery also be ruled out.
So the writer's three thoeries are all proved unconvincing.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 274, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...d our that in order to hunt in the sea. the predators has to have large, well-devel...
^^^
Line 2, column 288, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'have', 'haven'.
Suggestion: have; haven
...order to hunt in the sea. the predators has to have large, well-developed eyes, the...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, hence, however, if, may, second, so, therefore, third, well, while, as to, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1638.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 320.0 270.72406181 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11875 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22948505376 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60239523084 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.565625 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 499.5 419.366225166 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 7.0 1.51434878587 462% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.542261901 49.2860985944 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.2 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3333333333 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.66666666667 7.06452816374 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.