TPO 45 integrated
The reading passage proposes three arguments to challenge the 200- million-year-old fossil structures found in Arizona were made by bees. However the lecturer holds a contract point of view.
Firstly, despite the fact that there was no fossil of actual bees found until now, the lecturer points out that in order to form a fossil there should be a specific kind of trees. This special kind of tree released a sticky liquid helped the formation of fossilized bees. However, the trees was rare 200 millions years ago.
Second, the writer argues the absence of flowing plants 200 million years ago made bee no food to eat. On the other hand, the lecturer disputes this idea by pointing out bees could feed on non-flowing plants such as pine trees. The new and mutual relationship between flowing plants and bees might evloved later and became stable.
Last but not the last, the reading passage claims that the structure found is lack of the spiral pattern which is always found in modern bees' chambers. Nevertheless, the lecturer offers a strong evidence to suppot the existence of bees -- the chemical. Modern bees use some water-proving material to protect their chambers. And some researchers have proved that the water-proving material exists in the fossil structures.
In conclusion, the lecturer disagrees with the writer's idea, and proding some clear statements to prove her point.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 139, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...res found in Arizona were made by bees. However the lecturer holds a contract point of ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 48, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...lusion, the lecturer disagrees with the writers idea, and proding some clear statements...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, in conclusion, kind of, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 8.0 22.412803532 36% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1162.0 1373.03311258 85% => OK
No of words: 228.0 270.72406181 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09649122807 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.88582923847 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59209942411 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 140.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.614035087719 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 335.7 419.366225166 80% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.4195479742 49.2860985944 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.3846153846 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5384615385 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.46153846154 7.06452816374 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0588961101727 0.272083759551 22% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.023471881891 0.0996497079465 24% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0163595493581 0.0662205650399 25% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0348176870725 0.162205337803 21% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00581740246792 0.0443174109184 13% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.0 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.7 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.