Both the article and the lecture talk about the existence of bees 200 million years age. The author provide several arguments to show that they couldn't live on that period. However, the professor refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading claims that the fossil of actual bees can't survived from 200 million years ago. However, the professor argues that the main reason that bees' fossils can not remain more for along time is the sticky material that produce by tree. According to the professor, may be these fossil remain in resin and protected from deterioration.
Second, the reading passage says that this fossil can't belong to the bees because there wasn't any flowering plant in that time. The professor counters this point by stating that It is possible that bees in that period fed on none flowering plant and after the centuries by coming of the flowering plant, they develop their feeding system and use flower pants.
Third, the reading make the argumentation that the structure of fossil that found in Arizona have a lack of similarity in some details. The professors refutes this claims by pointing out that chemical analysis show that modern bees' nest have waterproof advantage. Furthermore, he states that by using chemical analysis, Scientists found out that this fossil also have waterproofing material that exist in modern bee's nest
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 101, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'provides'.
Suggestion: provides
... bees 200 million years age. The author provide several arguments to show that they cou...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 145, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...ide several arguments to show that they couldnt live on that period. However, the profe...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 58, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...g claims that the fossil of actual bees cant survived from 200 million years ago. Ho...
^^^^
Line 3, column 189, Rule ID: FOR_ALONG_TIME[1]
Message: Did you mean 'for a long time'?
Suggestion: for a long time
...n that bees fossils can not remain more for along time is the sticky material that produce by ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 193, Rule ID: ALONG_TIME[1]
Message: Did you mean 'a long time'?
Suggestion: a long time
...at bees fossils can not remain more for along time is the sticky material that produce by ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 284, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this fossil' or 'these fossils'?
Suggestion: this fossil; these fossils
...ree. According to the professor, may be these fossil remain in resin and protected from dete...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 51, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...e reading passage says that this fossil cant belong to the bees because there wasnt ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 89, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...l cant belong to the bees because there wasnt any flowering plant in that time. The p...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 152, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'refute'.
Suggestion: refute
...ilarity in some details. The professors refutes this claims by pointing out that chemic...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, however, may, second, so, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 10.4613686534 29% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1148.0 1373.03311258 84% => OK
No of words: 225.0 270.72406181 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10222222222 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.87298334621 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4133537957 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 128.0 145.348785872 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.568888888889 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 341.1 419.366225166 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.5606653065 49.2860985944 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.363636364 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4545454545 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.18181818182 7.06452816374 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 4.19205298013 215% => Less language errors wanted.
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: 0.0753305366485 0.272083759551 28% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0308464597569 0.0996497079465 31% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0185805395974 0.0662205650399 28% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0448537593174 0.162205337803 28% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0176253794484 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: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.28 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 52.0 63.6247240618 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.