Both the reading passage and lecture discuss about several characteristics of agnostids, a group of marine species that became extinct long ago. The author presents some hypotheses regarding eating habit and behaviors of agnostids. However, the lecturer casts doubt on those theories and refutes each of them by providing several counter-arguments.
First of all, the reading posits that agnostids were active predators which lived by eating smaller organisms. In the contrary, the lecturer refutes the idea mentioning that it is required to have large well developed eyes and high quality vision to be a hunter. As agnostids' eyes were not well developed and they were almost blind, it is highly unlikely that they were active predators. She also points out to the fact that agnostids did not have other sensory organs required for hunting.
Secondly, the author brings up the idea that agnostids were seafloor dwellers and survived by eating dead organisms or bacteria. Nevertheless, the lecturer finds this idea dubious and she states that most of seafloor dwellers are slow and they are mostly localized to some places. However, agnostids were tremendously fast species and they were found across a large area. Thus it invalidates the assumption that agnostids dwelled on the seafloor as their nature contradicted general characteristics of seafloor dwellers.
Finally, according to the article, it is possible that agnostids were parasites and lived on primitive fish or other larger anthropods. On the other hand, the speaker dissatisfied with the idea and claims that if it is expected that population of parasite is small as if there are numerous members in parasite group might kill off the host they live on. She also points out the fact that vast amount of fossilized agnostids proves that population of those species were very large which invalidates the assumption that agnostics were parasites.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 373, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...nd they were found across a large area. Thus it invalidates the assumption that agno...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, regarding, second, secondly, so, thus, well, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1614.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 303.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32673267327 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17215713816 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79675660923 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.531353135314 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 504.0 419.366225166 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.9212671299 49.2860985944 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.285714286 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6428571429 21.698381199 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.92857142857 7.06452816374 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.258159298976 0.272083759551 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0904643498034 0.0996497079465 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0745376389564 0.0662205650399 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144170437815 0.162205337803 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0400587640383 0.0443174109184 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 53.8541721854 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.63 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.