TPO45
The professor revises the idea presented in the passage that there are several doubts about the beehive-like fossil structures found in Arizona to be bee nests and refutes each of the points made in the reading.
First of all, the author states that the fossils of actual bees date to 200 million years ago have never been found. The professor confirms this statement, but she explains this fact does not mean that bees did not exist at that time. She clarifies that bees need the resin, which is a sticky liquid produced in special trees, to be preserved. Due to the fact that these trees were very rare, it could have been very hard for bees to remain preserved and turn into fossils. So, the first theory does not hold true due to the lack of compelling evidence.
Secondly, according to the text, 200 million years ago, flowering plants did not exist. Since bees have a mutual relationship with flowering plants, they did not exist, too. The professor asserts that bees could have been feeding on non-flowering plants like ferns before the evolution of flowering plants and changed their food after the advent of them. Therefore, the second theory has some deficiencies regarding the main point of the passage.
Finally, the professor acknowledges that the fossilized structures lack the spiral pattern of modern beehives’ caps, but she holds this view that chemical analysis proves that the structures are bee nests. This is because there is a special waterproofing material in the fossils that are found in the modern nests, too. Thus the third theory is not convincing as well.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 326, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...hat are found in the modern nests, too. Thus the third theory is not convincing as w...
^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ird theory is not convincing as well.
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thus, well, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => 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: 1336.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 269.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96654275093 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0498419064 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49183794966 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.57249070632 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 388.8 419.366225166 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => 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: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.2660280887 49.2860985944 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.769230769 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6923076923 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.69230769231 7.06452816374 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.116984043026 0.272083759551 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0435686064704 0.0996497079465 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0206974865958 0.0662205650399 31% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0643702546035 0.162205337803 40% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0371121427995 0.0443174109184 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 68.1 53.8541721854 126% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.