Some fossil structure 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 and the earliest fossil 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 and 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 structure 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 structure found in Arizona would be a good evidence of bees' existence 200 million years ago.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 197, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...isting 200 million years ago. Albeit the reading passage proposes three reasons t...
^^
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 340, 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 385, 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 434, 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 490, 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 395, 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 : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1583.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 307.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15635179153 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48399047955 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550488599349 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 482.4 419.366225166 115% => 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: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => 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: 27.0 21.2450331126 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 48.3703002928 49.2860985944 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.909090909 110.228320801 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.9090909091 21.698381199 129% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 7.06452816374 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => 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: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0560312705965 0.272083759551 21% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0265961831653 0.0996497079465 27% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0123199132571 0.0662205650399 19% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0381887874968 0.162205337803 24% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0141983222361 0.0443174109184 32% => 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: 16.8 13.3589403974 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 53.8541721854 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.04 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 63.6247240618 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.498013245 122% => 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.