Archaeologists have recently found a fossil of a 150-million-year-old mammal
known as Repenornamus robustus (R. robustus). Interestingly, the mammal's
stomach contained the remains of a psittacosaur dinosaur. Some researchers have
therefore suggested that R. robustus was an active hunter of dinosaurs. However,
a closer analysis has made the hypothesis that R. robustus was an active hunter
unlikely. It was probably Just a scavenger that sometimes fed on dinosaur eggs
containing unhatched dinosaurs.
First, R. robustus, like most mammals living 150 million years ago, was small—
only about the size of a domestic cat. It was much smaller than psittacosaurs,
which were almost two meters tall when full grown. Given this size difference, it is
unlikely that R. robustus would have been able to successfully hunt psittacosaurs
or similar dinosaurs.
Second, the legs of R. robustus appear much more suited for scavenging
than hunting: they were short and positioned somewhat to the side rather than
directly underneath the animal. These features suggest that R. robustus did not
chase after prey. Psittacosaurs—the type of dinosaur found in the stomach of
R. robustus—were fast moving. It is unlikely that they would have been caught by
such short-legged animals.
Third, the dinosaur bones inside the stomach of the R. robustus provide no
evidence to support the idea that the dinosaur had been actively hunted. When
an animal has been hunted and eaten by another animal, there are usually teeth
marks on the bones of the animal that was eaten. But the bones of the psittacosaur
inside the R. robustus stomach do not have teeth marks. This suggests that
R. robustus found an unguarded dinosaur nest with eggs and simply swallowed an
egg with the small psittacosaur still inside the eggshell.
The reading states that it is unbelievable that R. robustus was an active hunter of dinosaurs and provides three reasons. However, the professor opposes this argument by explaining that actually, R. robustus was a powerful hunter of dinosaurs.
Firstly, the reading claims that R. robustus was too small to hunt. In other words, their size was similar to a domestic cat. In contrast, the professor disagrees with this argument by providing proofs that R. robustus was bigger and could eat little dinosaurs.
Secondly, the reading argues that legs were too short and more appropriate for scavaging as opposed to hunting. Whereas, the professor refuses this idea. He provides an example of another dinosaur called tasmania devil, whose legs was the same length and positioned to the same side as R. robustus. Besides, this tasmania devil could run 15km/h by being an active and successful hunter.
Third, the reading provides another reason that R. robustus was not a hunter because of no proofs of teeth marks on eaten another animal, while professor states in the lecturer that R. robustus had big jaws allowing swallow big pieces of victims. Thus, it approves the absence of teeth marks on the bones of eaten animals.
- The charts below show the proportions of British students at one university in English who were able to speak other languages in addition to English, in 2000 and 2010. 73
- The pie chart below shows the main reasons why agricultural land becomes less productive. The table shows how these cause affected three regions of the world during the 1990s. 73
- In a number of countries, some people think it is necessary to spend large sums of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities. Others believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport.Discuss both th 78
- In some countries, the average weight of people is increasing and their level of health and fitness is decreasing.What do you think are the causes of these problems and what measures could be taken to solve them?Give reasons for your answer and include an 78
- In a number of countries, some people think it is necessary to spend large sums of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities. Other believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport.Discuss both the 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 112, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whereas” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...te for scavaging as opposed to hunting. Whereas, the professor refuses this idea. He pr...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, besides, first, firstly, however, second, secondly, so, third, thus, whereas, while, as to, in contrast, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => 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: 1025.0 1373.03311258 75% => OK
No of words: 201.0 270.72406181 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09950248756 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.76529505866 4.04702891845 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51315195998 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 112.0 145.348785872 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.557213930348 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 306.9 419.366225166 73% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 11.0 21.2450331126 52% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.6200061249 49.2860985944 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 60.2941176471 110.228320801 55% => More chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 11.8235294118 21.698381199 54% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 7.58823529412 7.06452816374 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
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: 0.0919661638958 0.272083759551 34% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0298095086148 0.0996497079465 30% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0396111502551 0.0662205650399 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.064429657152 0.162205337803 40% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0202942663188 0.0443174109184 46% => 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: 8.5 13.3589403974 64% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 68.77 53.8541721854 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.4 11.0289183223 58% => Flesch kincaid grade is low.
coleman_liau_index: 11.41 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 48.0 63.6247240618 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 4.0 10.7273730684 37% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 6.4 10.498013245 61% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.