Agnostids how they might have lived
The article and the lecture are both about theories on the livelihood of agnostids. The author of the reading proposes three ideas of how agnostids might have lived. Nevertheless, the lecturer refutes the statements made by the writer. She is of the opinion that each of these theories have serious weaknesses.
First of all, the author suggests that agnostids swam and hunted others smaller preys. This argument is challenged by the lecturer. She says that other predators in the open ocean usually have well-developed eyes to track their food. Meanwhile, since agnostids have poor-developed eyes, they must have had other special organ no evidence. Therefore, this rules out the possibility of agnostids being free-swimming predators.
Second, the writer contends that agnostids inhabited on the seafloor. However, the speaker rebuts this point by asserting that animals living on the seabed are not able to swim fast and therefore to travel a long distance. They are usually not located in a spread area but concentrated in a small geographic one where they originated. She elaborates on this by mentioning that agonistids were found in multiple sites in a large region, which proves that they moved across a long way from one place to another in the ocean. This is not normal of seafloor dwellers, hence, eliminates the feasibility of this theory.
Finally, it is stated in the passage that agnostids were likely to be parasites. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits that evidence show that agnostids are not typical parasites. According to the speaker, the population of parasites cannot be large and must be within a certain limit, otherwise, they would kill off the main organism, on which they live. The number of agnostids, nonetheless, must have been quite huge since they found large quantity of fossilized individuals of this species. As a result, they could not be parasites
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-05 | YasamanEsml | 86 | view |
| 2023-06-19 | Vivian Chang | 76 | view |
| 2023-02-07 | reza_fattahi | 73 | view |
| 2023-01-30 | reza_fattahi | 86 | view |
| 2023-01-30 | reza_fattahi | 75 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 326, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
..., they must have had other special organ no evidence. Therefore, this rules out t...
^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...inates the feasibility of this theory. Finally, it is stated in the passage tha...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, hence, however, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, therefore, well, while, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 44.0 30.3222958057 145% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1594.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 308.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17532467532 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78376858155 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.577922077922 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 500.4 419.366225166 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 3.25607064018 338% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.6254835289 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.8947368421 110.228320801 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.2105263158 21.698381199 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.36842105263 7.06452816374 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.27373068433 257% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.364244775517 0.272083759551 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0896410909499 0.0996497079465 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0850368601086 0.0662205650399 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192912108498 0.162205337803 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0371179523401 0.0443174109184 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 13.3589403974 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 63.6247240618 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.