Fossil structures not created by bees
Some structures similar bee nests were discovered in very old fossils. The passage mentions that some argue these are not truly nests of bees, since there are no evidence of bee surviving during the time dated bace to the fossil, and bees may face with shortage of food. But the lecture considers them unconvincing.
The passage begins by arguing that none of existence of actual bees' fossils have been found until today. Nevertheless, the lecture counters this, pointing out that the formation of fossils require a special chemical material provide by pinetree, and this kind of trees were not exist during the time when the above fossils were formation. Thus, one cannot expect the discovery of fossils of bees during that time. Therefore, the assertion of the passage does not sound reasoning.
Furthermore, the passage assumes that bees cannot survive during 200 million years ago since they don't have enough flowering plants which are the major sources of their foods. The lecture, however, suggests this may not be merited by the evidence. An appropriate is not very far to seek. For instance, bees may originally eat other plants other that flowering plants. With the gruadlly popular growing of the flowering plants, bees transform their habitate to mainly eat them, until today. The passage cannot bolster the recommendation without ruling out the refutation.
Last but not the least important, even if the evidence turns out to support the passage that the structures in the fossils lack details compared with today's bee nests, one critical fact is left out of consideration. The lecture points out that the passage neglects the truth that the two nests both have common chemical component, which is widely used in today's bee nests to prevent from water. Hence, the extence of this material may indicate the structures are truly bee nests at that time. The passage must explain more persuasively to reach the cited conclusion.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 279, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'existed'.
Suggestion: existed
...netree, and this kind of trees were not exist during the time when the above fossils ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 99, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...during 200 million years ago since they dont have enough flowering plants which are ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 249, Rule ID: DT_JJ_NO_NOUN[2]
Message: Probably a noun is missing in this part of the sentence.
...his may not be merited by the evidence. An appropriate is not very far to seek. For instance, ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, therefore, thus, for instance, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 30.3222958057 148% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1630.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 318.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12578616352 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22286093782 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49141558473 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.547169811321 0.540411800872 101% => 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: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 60.4828895705 49.2860985944 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.8823529412 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7058823529 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.82352941176 7.06452816374 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.278687903527 0.272083759551 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0868824868637 0.0996497079465 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0797044485621 0.0662205650399 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.185594707225 0.162205337803 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0607092221938 0.0443174109184 137% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => 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.