tpo39
The reading and the listening passage have a debate on factors which are responsible for mass-extinction at the end of the Triassic time. The writer puts forward 3 main points which are refuted by following speaker.
First, the writer suggests that sea levels were decreased and shallow ocean creatures were died; as a result, shortage of food in coastal areas leaded to extinction. The speaker views this issue from opposite angle. According to her, coastal fluctuation was gradual. For decreasing the mass population in Triassic period, this chenge in sea levels should happen sudden. Thus, it is not advisable that reducing sea levels take part in that extinction.
The second reason offered by the writer is weather cooling because of volcanic activity. Huge amount of SO2 led to reducing in world temperatures which consequently damages to living species. The speaker casts doubt on this assumption by saying that excess SO2 in the air in the present of water could clear and return to the earth as acidic rains. So, the short period of abound SO2 could not produce such problem.
Last, the writer proposes that asteroid strike may result large amount of dust and prevent receiving sunlight to earth. This event destroyed plants and made trouble for other species. On contrary, the speaker holds an opposite view. She claims that very few scientist believes asteroid strike and they could not find asteroid creature. In addition, this event happene 12 million years before mass extinction. Furthermore, it can not be related to this matter.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 402, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t period of abound SO2 could not produce such problem. Last, the writer propos...
^^
Line 7, column 255, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun scientist seems to be countable; consider using: 'few scientists'.
Suggestion: few scientists
... an opposite view. She claims that very few scientist believes asteroid strike and they could...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, furthermore, may, second, so, thus, in addition, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => 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: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1302.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 253.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.14624505929 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98822939669 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54487755226 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 145.348785872 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.632411067194 0.540411800872 117% => OK
syllable_count: 380.7 419.366225166 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.9431500373 49.2860985944 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 76.5882352941 110.228320801 69% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.8823529412 21.698381199 69% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.76470588235 7.06452816374 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => 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: 10.3 13.3589403974 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.73 53.8541721854 122% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 11.0289183223 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.0 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => 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.