The reading and the writing both are about anthropodes named, Agnostids marine which were the relatives of modern insects. The author believes that it is difficult to inferred from fossils how they behave and what they eat to live life. So, he provides three theories how they were lived. The speaker challenges the statement made by the author. He is of opinion that none of the theory is convincing.
First of all, the article notes that Agnostid were free swimming predator and they were used to hunt on numerous small organisms to survive. However, the lecturer refutes the point by mentioning that swimming predators usually have well developed vision in order to prey. But, the eyes of Agnostids were poorly developed as well as no evidence of any other developed sensory organ in order to hunt on ocean organisms.
Secondly, the author suggests that they could be seafloor dwellers and survived by dead organism and grazing bacteria. The professor, on the other hand, is not agreed with the idea and he asserts that seafloor dwellers are not able to move quickly and cannot spread to other areas. Therefore, they usually live in a smaller geographic area rather than multiple geographic areas. Further, he mentions that agnostid were very fast and spread into different locations by contrast to seafloor dwellers. In this way, this theory is ruled out with erroneous assumption.
In the last it is stated that they could be exist as parasites and lived on primitive fishes and other animals. On the flip side, the lecturer argues that parasites exist in miniature number and plentiful parasite can kill the host. Moreover, he elaborates on this point that Agnostidts were enormous in number as compared to parasite population and so this predicted theory is not fitting in the frame.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 89, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[5]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'used to hunting'.
Suggestion: used to hunting
...re free swimming predator and they were used to hunt on numerous small organisms to survive....
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 293, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: enormous
...ates on this point that Agnostidts were enormous in number as compared to parasite population and ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, as well as, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1503.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 299.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02675585284 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50209250132 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.555183946488 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 471.6 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.1878778046 49.2860985944 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.9375 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6875 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.3125 7.06452816374 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.398695909911 0.272083759551 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111583979346 0.0996497079465 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0707284302469 0.0662205650399 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.215968271626 0.162205337803 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0492146052467 0.0443174109184 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.3589403974 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.97 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.