The reading and lecture both talk about Agnostids- a marine animal lived a million years ago. The text presents three theories about how agnostids lived. The lecture dismisses all the theories presented and casts doubt on their viability.
First, the passage suggests that, agnostids just like other primitive anthropods were really good swimmers and predators who hunted small organisms in the ocean. The lecture refutes the claim and states that, anthropods have large well-developed eyes. Their vision is important to hunt their prey efficiently. But, the agnostids' fossils revealed that, those animals had tiny eyes and they didn't have good vision. Along with that, no other sensory organ was found that could have helped them with hunting.
Next, the text presents the argument that, agnostids were seafloor- dwellers lived off dead organisms or bacteria. However, the speaker contests the view and explains further that, most seafloor dwellers move very slowly and their territorial area is small. On the other hand, the agnostids' fossils found were spread across large area and supports that those animals were fast moving, unusual for seafloor-dwellers.
Lastly, the author expresses the view that, agnostids were parasites living on and feeding off large animals citing modern day parasites like fleas, ticks, and mites. The lecture refutes this point and states that, if the parasite's population is way too large then it can threaten the host population, which means it cannot survive without the host and kill the host organism. The fossil evidence points out that, agnostids were large in numbers. So the professor rules out this theory too.
In conclusion, the lecture rejects on all three theories on account of its plausibility.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 155, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ree theories about how agnostids lived. The lecture dismisses all the theories pres...
^^^
Line 2, column 389, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...t, those animals had tiny eyes and they didnt have good vision. Along with that, no o...
^^^^^
Line 6, column 223, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'parasites'' or 'parasite's'?
Suggestion: parasites'; parasite's
...utes this point and states that, if the parasites population is way too large then it can...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, lastly, really, so, then, well, in conclusion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1481.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 275.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38545454545 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07223819929 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48233427867 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.6 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 430.2 419.366225166 103% => 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: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.1393675188 49.2860985944 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.5625 110.228320801 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1875 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5625 7.06452816374 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.375342378609 0.272083759551 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.127239736894 0.0996497079465 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0905163568078 0.0662205650399 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.185815617454 0.162205337803 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0941192083057 0.0443174109184 212% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.