Some fossil structures looking like bee nests have been found in Arizona, and now both the reading passage and the lecture discuss the possibility of bees existing 200 million years ago. Albeit the reading passage proposes three reasons to prove that these insects didn't exist at that time, the lecturer challenges all of them, and believes none of the skeptics are conceiving.
First of all, based on the reading passage, there is no fossil available from 200 million years ago, as the earliest fossil found dues to 100 million years before. However, the lecturer states that a sticky liquid produced by trees is needed to preserve bodies of bees which was rare about 200 million years ago, thus it's probable that bees just couldn't be preserved. Therefore, since trees didn't have the right substance to preserve bees, there's no foundation of fossils. And although it's true, it's not a plausible reason for refuting bees’ existence.
Moreover, in accordance with the author, bees and flowers have a close evolutionary history. Thus, due to the fact that flowers appeared 125 years ago, it's not possible that bees existed prior to flowers. The lecturer claims that bees are mutually dependent, and it's true, yet it's likely that bees used to feed on none flowering plants in evolutionary period, and then after flowers came to existence, bees adapted their feeding habits.
Finally, according to the reading passage, fossilized structures have some differences with the modern ones, and thus it's likely that the structure belongs to another insect, like wood-boring beetles. However, the lecturer states that even though the fossilized chambers lack caps, in chemical analysis scientists discovered that both the fossilized chambers and the modern ones are built from a water proof substance. In conclusion, the structures found in Arizona would be a good evidence of bees' existence 200 million years ago.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 266, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...ree reasons to prove that these insects didnt exist at that time, the lecturer challe...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 346, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...s ago, thus its probable that bees just couldnt be preserved. Therefore, since trees di...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 391, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...nt be preserved. Therefore, since trees didnt have the right substance to preserve be...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 440, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: there's
...e the right substance to preserve bees, theres no foundation of fossils. And although ...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 496, Rule ID: IT_IS[6]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
...tion of fossils. And although its true, its not a plausible reason for refuting bee...
^^^
Line 4, column 397, Rule ID: EN_COMPOUNDS
Message: This word is normally spelled as one.
Suggestion: waterproof
...rs and the modern ones are built from a water proof substance. In conclusion, the structure...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, look, moreover, so, then, therefore, thus, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1605.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 308.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21103896104 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51518201731 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.558441558442 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 485.1 419.366225166 116% => 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: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.51434878587 462% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.238210026 49.2860985944 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.75 110.228320801 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6666666667 21.698381199 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.25 7.06452816374 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.0568026809022 0.272083759551 21% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0258219881994 0.0996497079465 26% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0117868772009 0.0662205650399 18% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0387652014134 0.162205337803 24% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0129774669957 0.0443174109184 29% => 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: 15.9 13.3589403974 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 53.8541721854 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.13 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.