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 and mention that 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 states that most of seafloor dwellers are slow and they are mostly localized to some places. However, agnostids were speedy species and 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 it is expected that population of agnostids were smaller as if there are numerous members in parasite group, those 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 348, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... species and 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 : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => 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: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1530.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 283.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.40636042403 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10153676581 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77387634748 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.547703180212 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 474.3 419.366225166 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.2421870511 49.2860985944 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.692307692 110.228320801 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7692307692 21.698381199 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.61538461538 7.06452816374 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => 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: 0.275314698722 0.272083759551 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100449652135 0.0996497079465 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0679298953423 0.0662205650399 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.157452137766 0.162205337803 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0526282641686 0.0443174109184 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.3589403974 112% => 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: 14.1 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.81 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.