Reading and lecture are both about reasons that led to larger sizes in animals in the past. On the one hand, the writer delivers three arguments that may explain large sizes of animals. On the other hand, the lecturer casts doubts on the claims made by the writer, stating that his arguments are somewhat inaccurate when compared with real facts.
First, there was a lot of volcanic activity on the Earth, in the past. The writer asserts that the level of oxygen was higher then and this stimulated animal's growth. However, the lecturer refutes the aforementioned idea, adding that the gases emitted by volcanoes were toxic, and therefore it is impossible to have existed a greater quantity of oxygen. Thus, the first hypothesis is directly contradicted by the lecturer.
Second, it is true that the Earth was covered with abundant plants, as the writer supports. Nevertheless, his theory about the nutritional issue is wrong because the vegetation had not enough nutrients to stimulate the growth process. Moreover, the level of carbon dioxide was higher. So, since the nutrients were scarce, this counterpoint gainsays the passage.
Third, living organisms populating warm regions, including people and animals, are generally small in sizes. The writer supports the fact that growth is influenced by warm climate which, given the facts, it is not plausible at all. People tend to be shorter in hot areas, because warm climate is not a good conducive to heat releasing, and as a consequence tall people have to spend more energy in order for this to happen. Thereby, this last standpoint is not viable as well. In conclusion, the author and the speaker are in disagreement regarding this topic.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 120, Rule ID: COMPARISONS_THEN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'higher than'?
Suggestion: higher than
...er asserts that the level of oxygen was higher then and this stimulated animals growth. How...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 127, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[3]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...rts that the level of oxygen was higher then and this stimulated animals growth. How...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, may, moreover, nevertheless, regarding, second, so, then, therefore, third, thus, well, in conclusion, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => 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: 1425.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 280.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08928571429 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09062348924 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61752092949 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.6 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 436.5 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.6822837223 49.2860985944 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.0625 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.25 7.06452816374 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.217722755012 0.272083759551 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0608128342889 0.0996497079465 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0453426764244 0.0662205650399 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114036339819 0.162205337803 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0254785822906 0.0443174109184 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.22 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.