The lecture and passage both are discussing about agnostid's which are group of marine animals that became extinct 450 million years ago. The writer proposes three theories to answer the question that what agnostid's eat or how they behave?
On the other hand the speaker finds serious weakness in these theories.
First of all, the writer mentions that agnostid's were good swimmers consequently, they had a great ability to catch there prey. on the contrary, the speaker posits that other marine animals had a very good eyesight which is highly important to catch their prey. Whereas, the agnostid's were blind or had a very poor vision. They should have at least any other specialized sensory organ to locate their prey. Unfortunately, their fossil records doesn't show any such organ, so writers theory about their swimming ability is false.
Furthermore, author claims that they were living on seafloors and feed themselves on dead organisms or bacteria's, which were plenty at the sea floor. Professor disagrees with this claim and states that seafloor dwellers usually stay in small geographical area. They do not have ability to loco- mote fast and stay locally. on the other hand, the fossil records proves that agnostid's lived in quite larger areas. therefore, they are not seafloor living marines.
Finally, passage claims agnostid's to be parasites which stays and feed on larger marine animals. This statement is refuted by the orator. He claims that agnostid's were very large in population so, if they were parasites they might kill their host which is not the case as per the fossilized record. It weakens the authors theory. Thus author is not satisfied with any assumption of the reading passage.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 129, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: On
...ad a great ability to catch there prey. on the contrary, the speaker posits that o...
^^
Line 4, column 444, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ey. Unfortunately, their fossil records doesnt show any such organ, so writers theory ...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 475, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
... records doesnt show any such organ, so writers theory about their swimming ability is ...
^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 324, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: On
...ty to loco- mote fast and stay locally. on the other hand, the fossil records prov...
^^
Line 6, column 383, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...the fossil records proves that agnostids lived in quite larger areas. therefore, ...
^^
Line 6, column 414, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Therefore
...agnostids lived in quite larger areas. therefore, they are not seafloor living marines. ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 9, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...not seafloor living marines. Finally, passage claims agnostids to be parasite...
^^
Line 8, column 35, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s. Finally, passage claims agnostids to be parasites which stays and feed on ...
^^
Line 8, column 165, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... by the orator. He claims that agnostids were very large in population so, if the...
^^
Line 8, column 318, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...r the fossilized record. It weakens the authors theory. Thus author is not satisfied wi...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, finally, first, furthermore, if, so, therefore, thus, well, whereas, at least, first of all, 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: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1437.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 280.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13214285714 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09062348924 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.41210541872 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.578571428571 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 430.2 419.366225166 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.5769580698 49.2860985944 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 79.8333333333 110.228320801 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.5555555556 21.698381199 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.83333333333 7.06452816374 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 4.19205298013 239% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.370793869272 0.272083759551 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110471425155 0.0996497079465 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0699700563846 0.0662205650399 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192247637765 0.162205337803 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.087909439061 0.0443174109184 198% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.5 13.3589403974 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 53.8541721854 120% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 11.0289183223 73% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => 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.