TPO 39
Both of the provided materials are discussing reasons related to a mass extinction at the end of the Triassic period. The reading offers three theories for this phenomenon. However, the lecturer does not find the presented arguments convincible, even though they seem plausible. She then refutes each of the author's points.
First, the article attributes the extinction to the fluctuations of the sea levels. The professor, on the other hand, opposes this theory by stating that creatures which were living in the coastal areas adapted to those changes. Also, the fluctuations were so gradual that it took place in millions of years. Moreover, she adds for these changes in the sea level to contribute to this mass extinction they had to be rather abrupt and sudden. So, the first theory could not find enough support.
Second, the reading mentions global cooling caused by an excessive amount of SO2 in the atmosphere as a result of volcanic eruptions for another theory. However, the lecturer refutes this point by stating that today's atmosphere still contains a considerable amount of SO2. So, this excess can not be the reason. Then, she explains the SO2 molecules combine with water in the atmosphere and result in rain. Thus, this outcome cannot cause mass extinction. The second theory was debuted, as well.
Third, the reading names an asteroid striking as the cause of the event. The professor contends that there is no evidence of asteroid hitting the earth during that time. Moreover, she mentions a found meteor object, but it was dated twelve million years before the extinction. The time difference between these two events makes the asteroid somewhat irrelevant to the disappearance and overturns the author's theory.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 211, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'todays'' or 'today's'?
Suggestion: todays'; today's
...urer refutes this point by stating that todays atmosphere still contains a considerabl...
^^^^^^
Line 13, column 401, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... to the disappearance and overturns the authors theory.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, still, then, third, thus, well, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1465.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 282.0 270.72406181 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19503546099 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09790868904 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61619708715 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.595744680851 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 435.6 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.5772434287 49.2860985944 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 77.1052631579 110.228320801 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.8421052632 21.698381199 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.05263157895 7.06452816374 86% => 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 : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 14.0 4.27373068433 328% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.5 13.3589403974 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.73 53.8541721854 122% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 11.0289183223 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.29 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.81 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.