In this set of materials, the reading passages discussed that the possibility of the presence of bees on Earth about 200 million years ago is questionable with some supporting arguments. While in the listening the professor casts doubt on what is presented in the text and believes that it is quite possible that this old fossil structure related to the preamble bee nest. Also, she says that the reasons that mentioned in the text are unconvinced.
First of all, in the text, it is clearly mentioned that fossils of actual bees cannot preserve until today. However, the professor claims that this animal can be preserved in some sticky substance that produced by trees. This material sometimes containing very older insect. In addition, she says that if we do not find fossils from this bees it does not mean that they do not present at this time and maybe they did not trape in the sticky substance.
furthermore, the professor disagrees with this idea that if the flowering plant were not developed at this time it means that bees could not exist. She points out that, it is quite possible that ancient bees nourished from not-flowering plant same a lot of kind of now bees.
Finally, in the text, it is stated that the fossil structure has not contain cap that it is observed in the today bee nests. The professor subscribes that modern bee produces some waterproof substance that prevents from wet to the nest so it is possible that old bees used the same chemical substance for this aim.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 333, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...ays that if we do not find fossils from this bees it does not mean that they do not ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Furthermore
...did not trape in the sticky substance. furthermore, the professor disagrees with this idea...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 70, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'contained'.
Suggestion: contained
...tated that the fossil structure has not contain cap that it is observed in the today be...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, while, in addition, kind of, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 19.0 12.0772626932 157% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 22.412803532 187% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1239.0 1373.03311258 90% => OK
No of words: 260.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.76538461538 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01553427287 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51509937221 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 140.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538461538462 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 369.0 419.366225166 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => 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: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.3936187805 49.2860985944 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.636363636 110.228320801 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6363636364 21.698381199 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.90909090909 7.06452816374 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.142724795839 0.272083759551 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0580317498915 0.0996497079465 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.04225538546 0.0662205650399 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0905030665111 0.162205337803 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0315913531243 0.0443174109184 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 65.05 53.8541721854 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.2367328918 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.0 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 53.0 63.6247240618 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.