The reading and the lecture are both about possible theories of how agnostids survived. The author of the reading believes that three theories can explain it. However, the lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article.
To begin with, the author points out that this animal was a predator because other kinds of athropods were strong and active hunters. This point is challenged by the lecturer. She mentions that their eyes were not developed enough to hunt other fishes. As a result, arthropods cannot be predators.
Secondly, the author contends that the other types of this animal were dwelling on the seafloor and so did agnostids. But the lecturer again rebuts this theory. She supposes they were living in the local area and they were not fast enough to move the other multiple territories that their fossils were found. Hence, they were slow and could not travel other sea places.
Finally, the author states that they may also had been parsides because of their
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 81, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... also had been parsides because of their
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, hence, however, may, second, secondly, so, well, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 16.0 30.3222958057 53% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 0.0 5.01324503311 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 819.0 1373.03311258 60% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 166.0 270.72406181 61% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.93373493976 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.58944267634 4.04702891845 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.220964326 2.5805825403 86% => OK
Unique words: 103.0 145.348785872 71% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.620481927711 0.540411800872 115% => OK
syllable_count: 245.7 419.366225166 59% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.7082045733 49.2860985944 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 68.25 110.228320801 62% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.8333333333 21.698381199 64% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.91666666667 7.06452816374 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.296750082894 0.272083759551 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0920127344717 0.0996497079465 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0659665299536 0.0662205650399 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143629825815 0.162205337803 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0694846923103 0.0443174109184 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.7 13.3589403974 65% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 66.74 53.8541721854 124% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 11.0289183223 65% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.72 12.2367328918 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 39.0 63.6247240618 61% => More difficult words wanted.
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: 61.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.5 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.