R. robustus were active hunter or not.
The article states that Repenomamus robustus was not an active hunter of psittacosaur dinosaurs. However the archaeologist states so are true, as R. robustus has dinosaurs were found in the stomach, So the author states it could be because of scavengers. However, the professor disagrees with the author and proves that R. robustus were an active hunter.
To begin with, the author states that R.robustus were very small in size, and this character makes them impossible to hunt dinosaurs that are of a bigger size. However, the professor disagrees with this statement and states that R.robustus could hunt baby dinosaurs. To carry on further, the professor states that the second reason is Size relation, predators must have twice mass, and so do R. robustus as baby dinosaurs.
To carry on further, the author states that legs are not suitable for hunting. Legs were short and positioned at the side and this decreases speed. However the professor sees flaws in this statement and prove it wrong by stating an example of the Tazmaneon devil, who has a short leg and positioned side, despite this, it can run 15km/hr. So, this proves that active predator can run this much to hunt.
To carry on another point made by the author, bones found in the stomach of R.robustus do not have any teeth marks, which proves it was not hunted and scavengers are responsible. Again the professor disagrees and states that R.robusutus has powerful jaw and they use them to grab the animal. They do not chew and use their back teeth, also swallow the big pieces. These are the reason that dinosaurs have no mark on bones.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-04-10 | Yam Kumar Oli | 81 | view |
| 2022-12-27 | villian7 | 76 | view |
| 2022-11-16 | rpinisetti8 | 71 | view |
| 2022-08-24 | dnudlyjgtnudbphwev | 80 | view |
| 2022-08-24 | dnudlyjgtnudbphwev | 80 | view |
- video games are waste of time 73
- Torrey plant survival 3
- old friend and new friend which one is more important 73
- communal online encyclopedia and traditional encyclopedias 80
- Some people like to do only what they already do well Other people prefer totry new things and take risks Which do you prefer Use specific reasons andexamples to support your choice 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 98, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ctive hunter of psittacosaur dinosaurs. However the archaeologist states so are true, a...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 60, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: small
...author states that R.robustus were very small in size, and this character makes them impossib...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 149, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...d at the side and this decreases speed. However the professor sees flaws in this statem...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 213, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'wrongs'?
Suggestion: wrongs
...es flaws in this statement and prove it wrong by stating an example of the Tazmaneon ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, second, so, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => 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: 1341.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 275.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87636363636 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07223819929 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50548885054 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 136.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.494545454545 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 410.4 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.6059087096 49.2860985944 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 78.8823529412 110.228320801 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.1764705882 21.698381199 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.35294117647 7.06452816374 33% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.254433038926 0.272083759551 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.114100901781 0.0996497079465 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.196828313219 0.0662205650399 297% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.169654412283 0.162205337803 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.163600316566 0.0443174109184 369% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.6 13.3589403974 72% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.73 12.2367328918 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.07 8.42419426049 84% => OK
difficult_words: 46.0 63.6247240618 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 65.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.5 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.