TPO43
The reading passage deals with the issue of how did agnostids make a living. The professor's talk focuses on the same topic. However, she believes that none of the theories stated in the reading are convincing. And in the lecture, the professor makes three specific points to back up her point of view.
In the first place, even though the reading passage suggests that agnostids may be free-swimming predators who ate small animals, the professor claims in the lecture that this theory is groundless. That is because predators often have big eyes which allow them to see clearly and catch animals precisely, but agnostids had almost-blind tiny eyes without any special sensors. Apparently, the professor's argument disproves its counterpart in the reading.
In the second place, contrary to the statement in the reading that agnostids may be seafloor dwellers, the professor argues that it turned out to be inadequate. Then she supports this point with the fact that agnostids had lived in multiple spaces while seafloor dwellers don't have the ability to move fast or far, which means they are not able to spread to new habitats.
Further, the author of the reading asserts that agnostids can be parasites who lived on other large animals. However, the professor illustrates that this claim is unwarranted by pointing out that parasites can't have an as large population as agnostids for the reason that with so many of them, they would kill off the organism they rely on.
To sum up, the professor precisely discovers the flaws in the reading passage and successfully reveals that the arguments made in the passage are incorrect.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 392, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...ut any special sensors. Apparently, the professors argument disproves its counterpart in t...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 273, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...multiple spaces while seafloor dwellers dont have the ability to move fast or far, w...
^^^^
Line 7, column 207, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...arranted by pointing out that parasites cant have an as large population as agnostid...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, but, first, however, if, may, second, so, then, well, while, to sum up, in the first place, in the second place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => 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: 1371.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 270.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07777777778 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05360046442 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63094646215 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.581481481481 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 411.3 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.7075496754 49.2860985944 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.25 110.228320801 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.25 7.06452816374 145% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.287855442012 0.272083759551 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0998334635665 0.0996497079465 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0860736098766 0.0662205650399 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155312981168 0.162205337803 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.105279054078 0.0443174109184 238% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.