In the lecture, the professor casts doubt on the reading passage’s idea that the nests found inside the fossilized trees were not created by bees. The professor asserts that the arguments used in the reading are not convincing. To begin with, according to the reading passage, no fossil remains of actual bees have been found that date to 200 million years ago. The professor argues that no bee remains that are 200 million years old doesn’t mean that bees didn’t exist at that time. He says maybe bees couldn’t be preserved as fossils at that time. Since there were almost no trees producing the right kind of resin, a sticky liquid produced by trees, the bees could not be preserved. On top of that, the reading passage states that flowering plants were in absence 200 million years ago. On the contrary, the professor claims that it’s quite possible that bees existed before flowering plants appeared on Earth. The professor points out that early bees might have been feeding on non-flowering plants that preceded flowering plants during evolutionary history. Later when flowering plants evolved, bees may have adapted to feeding on them. And this new relationship between bees and flowering plants have remained stable ever since. Lastly, the professor rebuts the reading’s point that the fossilized structures lack some of the finer details of bees’ nests such as the chambers lacking caps by stating that there’s chemical evidence that supports the theory that bees built the chambers. The professor points out that when the fossilized chambers were chemically analyzed, it turned out that they contain the same kind of waterproofing material that’s used by modern bees.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... explored in the following paragraphs. First, the passage contends that there w...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, first, second, so, therefore, third, thus, while, for instance, kind of, sort of, such as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1430.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 289.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94809688581 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.38223671859 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.529411764706 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 424.8 419.366225166 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.0067033624 49.2860985944 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.375 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0625 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.6875 7.06452816374 109% => 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 : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.27373068433 257% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0944544014664 0.272083759551 35% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0368506448622 0.0996497079465 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0221448403187 0.0662205650399 33% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0629288339256 0.162205337803 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0158299038498 0.0443174109184 36% => 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: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.13 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.92 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.