living ways of demised agnostids that were primitive arthropods
Both the reading and the lecture talks about living ways of demised agnostids that were primitive arthropods. The author in the extract provides three theories all of which can say how agnostids may have lived. However, the professor in the lecture denies all of these theories.
First and foremost, according to it is possible that agnostids were free-swimming predators and eat smaller animals. Nonetheless, the lecture denies this theory by declaring that the group of arthropods that are predators have large well-developed eyes that are the best way to chase prays. But in contrast, according to fossils' records, agnostids not only did not have such eyes, but also they didn't have other organs to help them to follow their prays.
The professor in the lecture further asserts that seafloor dwellers move slowly, and also they stay in a localized area. By contrast, agnostids occupied a multiple areas, and also fossils records show that they move fast from one area to another. This claim refutes the writer assertion that agnostids were seafloor dwellers.
The text lasting alleges that agnostids could be parasites which lived and fed off larger organisms. Nevertheless, the professor in the lecture opposes this theory by asserting that parasites cannot have population as large as agnostids had. He states that parasites kill of host organisms, so accordingly they have limited population.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-11-01 | emadifahimeh@gmail.com | 76 | view |
- extinction of giant Steller's sea cow 88
- whether or not societies rules related to the young to follow are extremely strict 73
- celebrities' point of view is more important for young people in comparison to older people 73
- sport and social activities are asimportant as a class or library in a university 73
- declining of yellow cedars 71
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 395, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...y did not have such eyes, but also they didnt have other organs to help them to follo...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 165, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'area'?
Suggestion: area
...contrast, agnostids occupied a multiple areas, and also fossils records show that the...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, first, however, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, so, well, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => 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: 1183.0 1373.03311258 86% => OK
No of words: 223.0 270.72406181 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.30493273543 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.86434787811 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66425836542 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 132.0 145.348785872 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.591928251121 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 359.1 419.366225166 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.3598784949 49.2860985944 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.5833333333 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5833333333 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.75 7.06452816374 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.273380591797 0.272083759551 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0993866140388 0.0996497079465 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.13083731386 0.0662205650399 198% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155216221718 0.162205337803 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.086613093094 0.0443174109184 195% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.46 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.