The reading passage states three theories about how agnostids may have lived, whereas the lecture points out that these hypotheses have some serious weaknesses.
Firstly, the author insists that like other primitive arthropods, agnostids may be free-swimming predators that prey smaller organisms, plus the smaller animals were sufficient in the ancient ocean for them to hunt. The professor, however, argues that the arthropods which lived in that way often had large well-developed eyes since the vision is crucial for them to prey. But the agnostids were weak in eyesight and even may be blind, thus they needed other organs to help them to hunt, that no proofs have been found yet.
Secondly, the reading says that agnostids can dwell on the seafloor and subsist on scavenging dead animals or gazing on bacteria. In contrast, the speaker reckons that the creatures that live in the seafloor are not able to move fast due to the complex topography. Since they move slowly through the seafloor, these animals generally find in limited geographic areas. While the fossil evidence indicates that angostids may live in multiple habitat across long distant which is unusual for seafloor creatures.
Lastly, the author deems that currently there are various species of arthropods that live in a parasitic way. So the agnostids also were parasites which maintained themselves by feeding on larger animals. On the contrary, the lecture rebuts it by saying that the parasites usually possess a small population because too many parasites may kill the hosts. And scientists have found far more fossilized individuals of agnostids, in this way, they cannot be parasites.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 91, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a parasitic way" with adverb for "parasitic"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...various species of arthropods that live in a parasitic way. So the agnostids also were parasites w...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, thus, well, whereas, while, in contrast, on the contrary
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 : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => 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: 1406.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 266.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28571428571 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03850299372 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61041976845 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 145.348785872 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.627819548872 0.540411800872 116% => OK
syllable_count: 423.0 419.366225166 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.56298817 49.2860985944 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.166666667 110.228320801 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1666666667 21.698381199 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.5833333333 7.06452816374 150% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.49976417835 0.272083759551 184% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.152228583866 0.0996497079465 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0856685565068 0.0662205650399 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.264094291982 0.162205337803 163% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0822889184038 0.0443174109184 186% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.42 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 63.6247240618 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.