TPO-43: Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they challenge the specific theories presented in the reading passage.
The debate at hand concerns the livelihood of agnostids, primitive sea-dwelling arthropods that became extinct 450 billion years age. The reading presents three various hypothesis regarding how agnostids lived, all of which are precluded by the professor in the lecture.
The first theory stated in the passage posits that agnostids could be free-swimmers that prayed on smaller animals. The professor strongly rejects this theory by stating that since these animals had very tiny eyes and were nearly blind, it is impossible that they could have prayed as most animal haunters possess exquisite vision. The professor also points out that many predators with limited sight have other special organs for haunting and the fossil records haven't shown any sign of a significant organ designated for pray on agnostids.
Secondly, the passage proposes the idea that these animals might have been seafloor dwellers. This theory is also ruled out in the lecture because according to the professor a key characeristic of seafloor dwellers is that they typically cover a small geographic area as they move very slowly and mainly stay in a single area. On the contrary, fossil records of agnostids show that they were present in many areas indicating that they were fast traveler, thus ruling out the theory that they might have been seafloor dwellers.
The final hypothesis presented in the article asserts that these animals could have been parasites, as many modern day arthropods are parasitic creatures. The professor also rejects this theory by pointing out to the high population of agnostids indicated by many fossil records. According to the lecture, parasites must keep a low population because if they grow beyond a certain threshold, they will kill their host and consequently, ruin they livelihood. The large population of agnostids countervails this point, thus ruling out the final theory mentioned.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 181, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'regarding' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'regards'.
Suggestion: regards
...ading presents three various hypothesis regarding how agnostids lived, all of which are p...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ded by the professor in the lecture. The first theory stated in the passage posi...
^^^
Line 3, column 117, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...wimmers that prayed on smaller animals. The professor strongly rejects this theory ...
^^^
Line 3, column 333, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...imal haunters possess exquisite vision. The professor also points out that many pre...
^^^
Line 3, column 464, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
...ans for haunting and the fossil records havent shown any sign of a significant organ d...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, first, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, thus, well, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => 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: 1612.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 301.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35548172757 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65453702459 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.56146179402 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 487.8 419.366225166 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.5109113901 49.2860985944 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.333333333 110.228320801 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0833333333 21.698381199 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.58333333333 7.06452816374 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.334639221208 0.272083759551 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.124234704786 0.0996497079465 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0582110568818 0.0662205650399 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.197878489836 0.162205337803 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0372138904331 0.0443174109184 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 13.3589403974 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 53.8541721854 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.23 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.