The reading passage debates a topic about Agnostids. Agnostids are small marine animals that became extinct many years ago. There are many fossils of this kind of animal around the world but these fossils can’t determine exactly that how Agnostids behaved or what they ate. The author argues three hypothesis about this issue. Nevertheless, the professor clarifies that none of the hypothesizes given by the writer are cogent.
First, the article discusses that Agnostids may are Free-Swimming Predator. Even though, the professor contends this supposition. According to the professor statements, all predators have large eyes to chase the pray but Agnosids have small eyes or even some of them are blind. There should be a probability that maybe these animals have another organ to chase the pray but researchers reject this. Consequently, This hypothesis is baseless.
Second, the professor opposes the writer’s assertion about living on the seafloor. The article professes that other kinds of primitive arthropods live in this region so it’s possible for Agnos to live there. The professor declines this idea by mentioning that animals which live in seafloor are slow. They live in the limited region. In contrast, Agnos was found in many areas so researchers conclude that these animals had a mechanism to move fast. As a result, this assumption seems illogical.
Finally, the passage posits that maybe Agnos were parasites which live on larger animals. Although the professor argues that the population of parasites are gracile because these animals kill the host animal. According to the number of founded fossils, researchers understand that Agnos was populous. So, we can infer that this presumption can’t be correct.
To sum up, the article and the professor have conflicting ideas about habitats of Argos and all pieces of evidence support that supposition of the article is wrong.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 304, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'hypothesis' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'hypotheses', 'hypothesises'.
Suggestion: hypotheses; hypothesises
... what they ate. The author argues three hypothesis about this issue. Nevertheless, the pro...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, first, if, may, nevertheless, second, so, even so, in contrast, kind of, as a result, to sum up
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 : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1626.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 300.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72342921088 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 145.348785872 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.556666666667 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 511.2 419.366225166 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 13.0662251656 161% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.8987193078 49.2860985944 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 77.4285714286 110.228320801 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.2857142857 21.698381199 66% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.85714285714 7.06452816374 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 13.0 4.27373068433 304% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.318075441783 0.272083759551 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.084885346491 0.0996497079465 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0732064041335 0.0662205650399 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15264588116 0.162205337803 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0700500364023 0.0443174109184 158% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 48.81 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.56 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.