TPO43 Integrated
The reading and the listening are both discussing three possible ways about how agnostids might have lived. While the author of the reading raises three seemingly possible theories, the lecturer challenges what is mentioned by the author and argues that each of them has severe weakness. The lecturer provides three reasons to support her arguments.
First of all, the author points out that since other kinds of primitive arthropods were excellent free-swimming predators, it it likely that agnostids also lived in that way. Nevertheless, the lecturer casts doubt on the idea by saying that free-swimming predators usually have good eyes and strong vision, which help them find smaller organisms, but in fact, the agnostids are blind. Furthermore, she argues that there are also no evidences showing that they have some extra sensors on their body to help them find the food. Consequently, this theory is not convincing.
Secondly, the writer claims that since other primitive arthropods lived on the seafloor, agnostids probably did, too. The speaker, however, rebuts this by asserting that seafloor dwellers cannot move fast or far away, and they can only stay in local area but not distant areas. She elaborates on this idea by suggesting that researchers actually find agnostids on multiple geological regions, which means that they can move fast and far away. Hence, it is unlikely that they lived on the seafloor.
Last but not least, it is stated that many types of present-day arthropods are parasites, so agnostids were possible to be parasites as well. The professor, on the other hand, posits that the population of parasites should not be large, and if there were so many individuals, they would kill the species that they lived on. She puts forth on the idea that agnostids are so many that they would rule out other species that they lived on. As a result, this theory also has serious problem and is not reliable.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 124, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: it
...were excellent free-swimming predators, it it likely that agnostids also lived in tha...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, consequently, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, well, while, in fact, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 12.0772626932 166% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 22.412803532 187% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1629.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 319.0 270.72406181 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1065830721 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22617688928 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58308351338 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.526645768025 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 482.4 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 3.25607064018 276% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.2365957799 49.2860985944 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.6 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2666666667 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.8 7.06452816374 167% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.467266070121 0.272083759551 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.145463316285 0.0996497079465 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0990440114504 0.0662205650399 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.253344460514 0.162205337803 156% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0708714383053 0.0443174109184 160% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24 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.