Tpo43
In the reading, the writer provides three theories about how agnostids may have survived whereas the professor in the listening repudiates that each of three theories has severe weakness.
To begin with, the author avers that resembling other primitive arthropods, the agnostids might act as free-swimming predators that feed on smaller organisms in the ocean. On the contrary, not approving the claim, the lecturer contends that the agnostids are not predators. The professor claims that arthropods are strong swimmers and powerful predator, because of their well-developed eyes which the agnostids do not possess. And to further clarify it, she adds that the agnostids are not capable to search for prey in the absence of specific organ.
Additionally, the writer posits that the agnostids might be seafloor dwellers living in the same way as other arthropods. Nevertheless, the speaker challenges the writer's expectation by saying that the agnostids are absolutely different from other arthropods, since the agnostids have the ability of moving more faster than the rest of the arthopods. Accordingly, the agnostids are able to move instantly from one place to another, as a result of which, they spread in long distance and inhabit large area.
Finally, the author asserts that the agnostids might be parasites, while the lecturer reputes this assertion by explaining that parasitic animals always maintain a limited population, for they have to kill their host organisms they live on. Adversely, the evidence of large amount of fossil illuminates that the agnostids have a dense population, which means that this type of arthropods parasitizing primitive arthropods is virtually impossible.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 164, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...evertheless, the speaker challenges the writers expectation by saying that the agnostid...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 308, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'faster' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: faster
...he agnostids have the ability of moving more faster than the rest of the arthopods. Accordi...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, finally, if, may, nevertheless, so, well, whereas, while, as a result, on the contrary, to begin with, in the same way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1443.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 262.0 270.72406181 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.50763358779 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02323427807 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89453177575 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.572519083969 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 441.9 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => 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: 26.0 21.2450331126 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 44.3509864603 49.2860985944 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.3 110.228320801 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.2 21.698381199 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.1 7.06452816374 185% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.479397044848 0.272083759551 176% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.180923693415 0.0996497079465 182% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0535791882452 0.0662205650399 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.264655647095 0.162205337803 163% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0512932175239 0.0443174109184 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.6 13.3589403974 132% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 53.8541721854 68% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.0289183223 132% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.97 12.2367328918 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.39 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.498013245 118% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => 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.