The reading and lecture both discuss how agnosids may have lived. While the reading provides three theories to explain how agnosids were lived, the professor refutes, saying none of these claims are convincing.
First, the reading states that agnosids were a free swimming predators that were eating small animals as other primitive arthropods. On the other hand, the professor argues this notion by saying that all of arthropods having a good developed vision. However, the agnosids had poor undeveloped vision and they might be blind. So, agnosids were not be predators. Furthermore, they would have another organisms that help them to act as predators, but nothing documented about that issue.
In addition, the reading avers that agnosids would survived by living on the dead organisms like parasides. However, the professor question this point by pointing out that animals seafloor have not the ability to move so fast and they live in a local areas. Moreover, the seafloor animas live in a small geographic area. However, the agnosids were movie so fast and they were inhabit a large distance. As a result, the sea floor could not be the source of food for agnosids.
Finally, the article shows that the agnosids were eating a large organisms as the large arthropods did. Nevertheless, the professor rejects this idea by saying that the parasites population were not too large. So, agnosids were not find the parasites so easy. Furthermore, agnosids were living on other organisms rather than the parasites.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 348, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...y might be blind. So, agnosids were not be predators. Furthermore, they would have...
^^
Line 4, column 52, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'survive'
Suggestion: survive
..., the reading avers that agnosids would survived by living on the dead organisms like pa...
^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 172, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'animals'' or 'animal's'?
Suggestion: animals'; animal's
...uestion this point by pointing out that animals seafloor have not the ability to move s...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 251, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'area'?
Suggestion: area
...o move so fast and they live in a local areas. Moreover, the seafloor animas live in ...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 295, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s. Moreover, the seafloor animas live in a small geographic area. However, the ag...
^^
Line 4, column 377, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'inhabited'.
Suggestion: inhabited
...nosids were movie so fast and they were inhabit a large distance. As a result, the sea ...
^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 66, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'organism'?
Suggestion: organism
...s that the agnosids were eating a large organisms as the large arthropods did. Neverthele...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 170, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'parasites'' or 'parasite's'?
Suggestion: parasites'; parasite's
...or rejects this idea by saying that the parasites population were not too large. So, agno...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 233, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'found'.
Suggestion: found
...re not too large. So, agnosids were not find the parasites so easy. Furthermore, agn...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, however, may, moreover, nevertheless, so, while, in addition, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 19.0 30.3222958057 63% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1277.0 1373.03311258 93% => OK
No of words: 246.0 270.72406181 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19105691057 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96035189615 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57727744831 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 131.0 145.348785872 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.532520325203 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 396.0 419.366225166 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.8576475117 49.2860985944 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 79.8125 110.228320801 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.375 21.698381199 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.875 7.06452816374 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 4.19205298013 215% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
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: 0.293742434089 0.272083759551 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.108570784003 0.0996497079465 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0460375078222 0.0662205650399 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.189171109124 0.162205337803 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0513086123642 0.0443174109184 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 13.3589403974 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 53.8541721854 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.23 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.91 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.