The lecture apparently disproves the reading passage which states three specific theories about how agnostids might have lived. The lecturer contends that, although the theories provided by the passage are seemingly acceptable, we still could find serious weakness in each theory. That is to say, these theories in the passage suffer from several flaws on various aspects, as is presented below.
The weakness of the first theory is that there is no apparent evidence indicating that the agnostids were free-swimming predators. According to the lecturer,other free-swimming predators commonly have large and well-developed eyes to hunt smaller animals. However, the agnostids is very special compared to other free-swimming predators because they usually have small and poorly-developed eyes and some of them are even blind. Therefore, the agnostids were unable to hunt smallar animals in the sea due to their poorly-developed eyes so that they could not become free-swimming predators.
The flaw of the second theory is that the agnostids would have no ability to move fast if they dwelled on the seafloor. For the other seefloor dwellers, they always occupy a small area in the sea whereas the agnostids had been found in multiple areas which indicates that they could move fast and move for a large distance. Due to this fact, the lecturer casts doubt on the second theory which assert that the agnostids were seafloor dwellers.
The problem of the third theory is that the agnostids could not be parasites because of some facts found by reasearchers. The lecturer emphasizes that the agnostids had a very large population in the sea. On the contrary, the population of parasites could not be very large on the large organisms because too many parasites may kill the organisms, which is also a disaster to the parasites. Therefore, the agnostids could not be parasites due to this reason.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 157, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , other
...ing predators. According to the lecturer,other free-swimming predators commonly have l...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, first, however, if, may, second, so, still, therefore, third, well, whereas, on the contrary, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1596.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 305.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23278688525 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17902490978 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87646577617 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.481967213115 0.540411800872 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 488.7 419.366225166 117% => 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: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.0167903022 49.2860985944 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.0 110.228320801 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7857142857 21.698381199 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 7.06452816374 127% => 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 : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.374345075217 0.272083759551 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.14503004985 0.0996497079465 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0670924230433 0.0662205650399 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.21632944226 0.162205337803 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0740879487383 0.0443174109184 167% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => 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.