The reading passage discusses how the agnostids may have been lived and the passage provides three theories for explaining. However the professor explains that the theories was very weak and he refutes each of the author's theories.
First, the reading passage claims that the agnostids may have free swimming predators for hunting as the primitive arthropods that were strong swimmers and active predators. However, the professor refutes this point by explainine that other types of arthropods have good eyes and their vision are very qualified. In the contrary, the angostids have weak vision and they may be blind. In order to that they must depend on other sensory organs.
Second, the reading passage posses that the agnostids are seafloor dwelles like primitive arthropods as they may have survived by scavenging dead organisms or by grazing on bacteria. But the professor refutes this point by explaining that the animal that are seafloor dwellers are very slow and stay at the same region. In the contrary the agnostides are fast and may move from region to another.
Third, the reading passage states that, the agnostids were parasities as they feeding off larger organisms as the way of modern-day arthropods that exist as parasites. The passage argued that the agnostids might lived on primitive fish. However, the professor refutes this point by saying that parasites populations tends to be very small and stay in limited places. But the agnostids live in big groups and extend a long many regions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 125, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...provides three theories for explaining. However the professor explains that the theorie...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 250, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ht lived on primitive fish. However, the professor refutes this point by saying t...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, second, so, third, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
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: 1274.0 1373.03311258 93% => OK
No of words: 246.0 270.72406181 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.17886178862 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96035189615 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50514705796 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 126.0 145.348785872 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.512195121951 0.540411800872 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 386.1 419.366225166 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => 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: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.1471078275 49.2860985944 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.0 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9230769231 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.07692307692 7.06452816374 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => 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: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.48032960043 0.272083759551 177% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.177422322734 0.0996497079465 178% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.12099038772 0.0662205650399 183% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.300963392552 0.162205337803 186% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0833313384948 0.0443174109184 188% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.