The passage mainly presents three reasons proposed by critics to prove that Sinosauropteryx does not have feathers. However, the professor in the listening part casts a completely negative attitude towards each of them for the following reasons.
First off, the lecturer argues that results are not the decomposition of skin. It is because there is no same decomposition of other birds buried in the same sites. As a matter of fact, the fossils preserved in volcanic ash at the same site indicate that these fossils' conditions are more likely to be some functional structures like feathers, instead of skin. On the contrary, the article maintains that these lines are decomposition of skin.
Second, the point of view mentioned in the passage that lines are frills is also unconvincing. According to the speaker, there is chemical difference between frills and feathers. Feathers contain protein known as beta-keratin; frills, on the other hand, do not have this kind of protein. As the analysis shows, these lines contain beta-keratin, which means these structure are supposed to be feathers.
At last, the professor points out feathers could have other functions besides the use of flying. For example, birds like peacocks use their tails to attract mates, which means their feathers are used to display. Recent analysis shows these structure are colorful; they are orange and white. That indicates these structures are feathers for the use of displaying rather than flying.
The aricle discusss a
The aricle discusss a facinating topic pertaining to disprove the sinosauropteryx fossil of dinosors in the past age which have a fine line that represent fossil have no features and provide three reasons to support. However, the professor explains that sinosauropteryx fossil of dinosors represent the features of feathers are present in the past age and oppose each of the following author reasons.
first of all, The passage discusses that sinosauropteryx fossil of dinosors may carry skin features insteads of features and its may be misrepresented after death of dinposors. he state that the fine line are unlike decomposed of fossil skin. he additionally state that, every fossil have different from dinosors fossils. clearly a disparity exists between the article and the evidence exhibited by tthe professor. as a result, we can safely assume that its a features of dinosors
second, the article pushes forth the idea that sinosauropteryx fossil of dinosors fine line may be created by frills not features. however, the classroom discussion contends that by highlighting that, features and frills have different chemical analysis that indicate features characteristics. consequently, we can argue that indeed the claim made in reading is unsustainable
finally, the reading posits that their features present in the backside and near the tail which do not represent the features . the prof argue that, that features may be used in the other purpose like attacking their mate. additionally, it may be used as other function. so these point also refute by the professor and unjusity the reading claims.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, first, however, if, second, so, for example, kind of, as a matter of fact, on the contrary, 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: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1250.0 1373.03311258 91% => OK
No of words: 236.0 270.72406181 87% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29661016949 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91947592106 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7523070159 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 145.348785872 93% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.572033898305 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 382.5 419.366225166 91% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => OK
Sentence length SD: 29.5451919497 49.2860985944 60% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 89.2857142857 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.8571428571 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.85714285714 7.06452816374 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => 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: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.291355102489 0.272083759551 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0883427401007 0.0996497079465 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0546873949903 0.0662205650399 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.154429826578 0.162205337803 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.033673281734 0.0443174109184 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 13.3589403974 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.16 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.