TPO45

Essay topics:

TPO45

Both the reading and the lecture discuss the possibility that bees existed 200 million years ago. The author indicates the bees did not exist and suggests three reasons. However, the professor contradicts them by offering three counterclaims accordingly.
To begin with, the reading suggests the actual bee fossils do not exist whereas the professor contends that this fact does not contradict with the possibility that bees existed 200 million years ago. To be more specific, back at the time, the trees that produced the liquid preserving fossils were rare, so this could be the reason why we don't find preserved bee fossil. That is, the first reason is not convincing.
In the second place, the passage brings up the point that the absent of flower proves that the bees did not exist back then. However, the scholar strongly disagrees with the argument by mentioning that bees could feed on non-flowering plants instead. It is true that bees and flowers evolved in a closed relationship, but bees may exist before flowering plant appeared and adapted flowering plant later.
Last but not least, the speaker opposes the third reason by providing evidence. While the author contends that the structure lacks some details so it was not made by bees, the speaker mentions that the substance found in the structure has been proven containing same water-proofing chemical used by modern bees. Hence, the structure was made by bees. In other words, the third statement is not plausible.

Votes
Average: 0.3 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 340, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...are, so this could be the reason why we dont find preserved bee fossil. That is, the...
^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, first, hence, however, if, may, second, so, then, third, whereas, while, in other words, it is true, to begin with, 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: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 20.0 30.3222958057 66% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1242.0 1373.03311258 90% => OK
No of words: 244.0 270.72406181 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09016393443 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.95227774224 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56149836055 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.569672131148 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 357.3 419.366225166 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 58.4134417537 49.2860985944 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.5384615385 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7692307692 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.7692307692 7.06452816374 167% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.0639952892857 0.272083759551 24% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0201308186194 0.0996497079465 20% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0256905072024 0.0662205650399 39% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.035990522527 0.162205337803 22% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0303253945287 0.0443174109184 68% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.