The reading and the listening passages are both about Agnostids, which is a marine animal that become extinct long time ago. While the reading provides three theories to determine what agnostids ate or how they behaved, the listening states the weakness of each theory.
First of all, the article states that other types of arthropods were strong swimmers and active predators that preyed on plenty of smaller organisms. However, the lecturer points out that in order for agnostids to swim, it needed eyes. In addition, agnostids had poorly vision and some of them were blind. Moreover, she adds that agnostids needed some other sensory in order to prey, but there is no evidence.
Secondly, the writer contends that agnostids were seafloor dwellers, which would have lived on eating dead organisms. Also, agnostids live in many areas around the world. On the other hand, the lecturer claims that seafloor move slowly and you can see them only in small areas, but agnostids fossils are available around the world because they were able to move very fast.
Finally, the author states that agnostids were parasite. The professor contradicts this point by saying that parasite population is not very large. There is few of them, and if they are available they kill the surrounding population. Therefore, the professor roles out this theory because agnostids fossils are huge number.
To conculde, the lecturer debunks each theory that the reading passage provided.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 271, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ing states the weakness of each theory. First of all, the article states that ot...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 411, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rder to prey, but there is no evidence. Secondly, the writer contends that agnos...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 374, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...cause they were able to move very fast. Finally, the author states that agnostid...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 325, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ause agnostids fossils are huge number. To conculde, the lecturer debunks each t...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 82, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...eory that the reading passage provided.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, while, in addition, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1241.0 1373.03311258 90% => OK
No of words: 237.0 270.72406181 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.23628691983 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.92362132708 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.39067425615 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.599156118143 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 378.9 419.366225166 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
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: 39.2298303825 49.2860985944 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.6428571429 110.228320801 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.9285714286 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.0 7.06452816374 142% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.436615603551 0.272083759551 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.1427473937 0.0996497079465 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0801410619373 0.0662205650399 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.199398391783 0.162205337803 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.121009955272 0.0443174109184 273% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => 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.