The reading passage and the lecture are both about the existence of bees on Earth 200 million years ago. More specifically, the writer discusses some witnesses show that this claim has some suspicions. The lecturer in the listening passage disagrees. He believes that there are sharp points to verify the entity of bees, according to the fossil has been discovered recently, and provides some evidence to refute all mentioned disagreements in the passage.
First of all, the author begins by stating that all the other fossils have been probed so far, are not more than 100 million years old, except this 200-year-old fossil has been found in the state of Arizona in the United States. The lecturer, however, disagrees. He declares that although this explored remnant is too old in comparison to the other once, it could be attributed to lack of presence such tree resins which are suitable for preserving the bee remains; therefore, no other fossil has been left at that era.
Furthermore, the author claims that no flowering plants existed 200 million years ago as long as they are essential nutrition source for bees. Again, the lecturer believes there are flaws in the writer's argument. The speaker holds that the mentioned contention is accurate at present, but the early bees might feed on the non-flowering vegetation. In fact, their biological relationship with flowers could be related to some evolutions on their habits later.
Lastly, the article mentioned that the discovered fossil has some wanting in exact details of their nests' structure. In turn, the professor in the listening part is doubtful that this is entirely right. He states that the chemical observations have proved that this early fossil has waterproof material just as same as the modern pattern nests. Thus, it firmly alleges the authenticity of the hypothesis.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 195, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...ecturer believes there are flaws in the writers argument. The speaker holds that the me...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, so, then, therefore, thus, in fact, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1545.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 301.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13289036545 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65900305328 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.581395348837 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 472.5 419.366225166 113% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.0044090168 49.2860985944 128% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.0 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0666666667 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.26666666667 7.06452816374 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.138402521799 0.272083759551 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0407977867908 0.0996497079465 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0258280583424 0.0662205650399 39% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0829620952268 0.162205337803 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0105028827996 0.0443174109184 24% => 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: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.14 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 63.6247240618 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.