The reading and also the listening are discussing about whether there is a significant theory about how the Agonistids lived according to the results which are showed in the fossils.
First, the reading and the listening discuss about if they can be a Free-Swimming Predators. The reading explains they may have been free-Swimming predators because the other types were strong swimmers and also there are a lot of small animals for them to eat in the sea. However, the listening explores the predators must have strong eyes to see their preys and tracking them. Lead to this fact which comes from the fossil analysis, The Aginistids could not be a predator because they had poor eyes to see.
Secondly, the reading and the listening are discussing about the theory of being a Seafloor Dwellers. In the reading, the author mentions they would be a Seafloor dweller because of some primitive samples of Arthropods which lives this way. In contrast, the professor claimed that they would not be a sea-Floor Dweller because if they were they could not move fast, Moreover they would not spread in different inhabitants.
Finally, the reading and the listening are discussing about the possibility of being a parasites. In the reading part, it demonstrates there are some species of arthropods which are feeding off the larger organisms. However, the professor explained they would not be such this marine, because the fossils where found in the vast amounts and they were varied in the size.
In conclusion, the reading presented some theories which might be possible about the type of Agnostid living but the listening challenges all the theories and ignore them.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 86, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a parasite' or simply 'parasites'?
Suggestion: a parasite; parasites
...scussing about the possibility of being a parasites. In the reading part, it demonstrates t...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, well, in conclusion, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => 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: 1392.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 275.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06181818182 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07223819929 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.633229485 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 133.0 145.348785872 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.483636363636 0.540411800872 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 414.9 419.366225166 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => 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: 33.5371891421 49.2860985944 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.0 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9166666667 21.698381199 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.08333333333 7.06452816374 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.308773538726 0.272083759551 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.118710124985 0.0996497079465 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.053372130503 0.0662205650399 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167402430176 0.162205337803 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0538395322817 0.0443174109184 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.