The article states that the bee did not exist 200 million years ago, and the author provides three reasons to support of his statement. However, the professor points out that the reasons are unconvincing and refutes the article.
First, the reading refers that there is no fossils of actual bees 200 million years ago.
It is mentioned that the earliest preserved body of bee is 100 million years old. However, the professor points out that the lack of fossil evidence might be due to the rare tree rasien, which served as the media to preserve the dead bee. Thus, no fossil evidence would not definitely indicate that there was no bee at that time.
In addition, the article points out that there was no flowering plant on the earth until 125 million years ago. Therefore, the bee is unlikely to exist before then since the bee is highly dependent on the flowering plant. Nevertheless, the professor argues that ancient bee might be fed on other types of plant species such as fern and pine tree. Thus, it is possible that the bee could survive without the existence of flowering plant.
Finally, the professor gives an additional evidence to strengthen her claim. Although the structure of the fossilized chambers lack some specific patterns of the nest of the bee, she points out that the waterproof substance in the chambers is identical to the material used by modern bees. The chemical evidence strongly support that the bee might exist 200 million years ago.
In sum, the professor in the lecture disagrees with the ideas in the reading passage. He believes the points of view menetioned in the reading passage is not true.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 32, Rule ID: THERE_S_MANY[4]
Message: Did you mean 'there are no fossils'?
Suggestion: there are no fossils
...icle. First, the reading refers that there is no fossils of actual bees 200 million years ago. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, so, then, therefore, thus, in addition, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1366.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 280.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87857142857 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09062348924 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.41837143718 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 141.0 145.348785872 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.503571428571 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 405.9 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.7562115816 49.2860985944 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.0666666667 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6666666667 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 7.06452816374 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.09492273731 147% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.0573371522029 0.272083759551 21% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0234573379081 0.0996497079465 24% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0174864458396 0.0662205650399 26% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0311970800229 0.162205337803 19% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0179404303416 0.0443174109184 40% => 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: 10.9 13.3589403974 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 70.13 53.8541721854 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.9 11.0289183223 72% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.02 12.2367328918 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
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.