TPO43
In the reading passage, the author claims that there are three viable hypothesizes regarding the food sources of agnostids, which were primitive arthropodes became extinct roughly 4850 million years ago. However, finding all the ideas implausible and qustionable, the professor casts doubt on what is presented in the text, and states some evidence to the contrary.
At first, the author argues that the agnostids such as other species of primitive arthtopods would have been free-swimming predator hunting smaller preys. Conversely, the lecturer contend this idea that all the swimming predators had well-developed eyes. Indeed, this feature was imparetive for them to catch their preys, but the tiny poorly eyes, which can be said rather blind, of the agnostides hindered this arthropod to haunt the smaller animals. Moreover, if this species had been a predator, it would have been possessed some other features which assisted them in this regard. The fossiles unearthed had no record of such these capabilities in the agnostides.
In addition, the reading passage holds the view that the agnostides would have been a seafloor fed on dead prganisms or baccteria. On the other hand, the professor dismisses this idea by clarifying the fact that the seafloor dwelleres enabled to move fast. In fact, having colonized slowly surroung location, the seaflood dwellers do live n smaller geographic areas. But the issue is the agnostids occupied vast regions and moved rapidly from one aera to another. SO, this theory do not expain the agnostides behavirs either.
Finally, the author asserts that being parasites could have clear their lifestyle. The professor, thought, disputes this point by subscribing tha fact that the population of parasites is very small. As a matter of fact, if their population increased, they would have kiled of their host. While on the basis of the fossiles, the multiplies numbers of the agnostids refutes the assumption concerning with their parastitous.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, finally, first, however, if, moreover, regarding, so, well, while, in addition, in fact, such as, as a matter of fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1676.0 1373.03311258 122% => OK
No of words: 313.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35463258786 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72434617493 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 145.348785872 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.61661341853 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 498.6 419.366225166 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.0083624849 49.2860985944 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.75 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5625 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.5625 7.06452816374 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.346475996233 0.272083759551 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102068489277 0.0996497079465 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0671260964682 0.0662205650399 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.17874113924 0.162205337803 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0740674821232 0.0443174109184 167% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 13.3589403974 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.75 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.42 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 63.6247240618 151% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.