The Komodo dragon is a very large species of lizard that lives on a few small islands in Indonesia. When the reptiles were first intensively studied, their hunting technique left many biologists puzzled because they simply bit their prey and then waited for it to slowly die. Experts started investigating the animal's mouths and they eventually suggested two possible explanations: massive bacterial load in their saliva or a specialized kind of venom. The first hypothesis was popular for many decades.
The first reason why massive bacterial load in their saliva seemed the more likely cause of death was that animals that had been bitten by Komodo dragons often had serious infections around the bites. Such infections would rapidly spread toxins throughout an animals' blood and kill it within a few days. Since the dragons are reptiles, and they can go for weeks between feedings, this strategy would work.
Second, the mouths of Komodo dragons are full of harmful bacteria. Researchers took samples of dragon saliva and analyzed it to see what bacteria were present. They found over 50 disease-causing pathogens (microorganisms like bacteria, viruses, and fungi that cause diseases), and when they injected the saliva directly into mice, many of the mice soon died. Samples of the mice's blood were full of the same kinds of bacteria.
Third, scientists believed that the bacteria allowed the dragons to catch much larger prey than their usual diet. Komodo dragons normally eat pigs and deer, which quickly die from blood loss when bitten. However, humans introduced water buffalo to the dragons' habitat. Water buffalo are so much larger than the dragons that they are difficult to kill. A massive bacterial load would turn otherwise survivable wounds for the buffalo into a slow death from bacterial infection.
Both the reading passage and the lecture discuss about the Komdo Dragons method of killing the preys. While the reading suggests that komdodo kills by loading tremendous amount of saliva full of bacteria, the lecture contradicts that by explainng how gradons use particular type of venom.
First of all the speaker suggests that bacterial theory is week since it is not based on real evidence or tests. On the other hand, the scientist studied venom in the lab by putting the animals into a scan and they found venom glands between the teeth. This contradict with the reading passage which states that Komdo cause sever infections to their preys after bitting them, since their saliva is full of bacteria. Eventually that lead to serious infections to the preys.
Secondly. the professor points out that harmful bacteria is not form the animal itself. It actually exists in the meat which they feed on. Not only this but, other prys like baffao catch the infection form the water. Again this contradicts with the reading passage which states that Komodo dragons mouth contains a lot of harmufull bacteria, that varies to cause fivteen different kind od diseas.
Finally, the lecture explains that after the komodo dragons bite their preys the wound become open and that helps them to distribute their venom into the prey's body. As a result, the blood pressure decrease and prevent open wound from closing. Eventually, the animal get into state of shock and finally dies. On the other hand the reading passage mentions that Komodo were able to catch large preys because of the lare amount of bacteria that get into their bodies and generate bacterial infection.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 11, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...s infections to the preys. Secondly. the professor points out that harmful bacte...
^^^
Line 5, column 202, Rule ID: FROM_FORM[4]
Message: Did you mean 'from'?
Suggestion: from
...er prys like baffao catch the infection form the water. Again this contradicts with ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, if, second, secondly, so, 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 : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => 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: 1392.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 278.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0071942446 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.22287024234 2.5805825403 86% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.55035971223 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 414.0 419.366225166 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
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: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.7858680055 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.4285714286 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8571428571 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.71428571429 7.06452816374 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => 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: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.139627158723 0.272083759551 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0426940383594 0.0996497079465 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0556896181924 0.0662205650399 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0802874801794 0.162205337803 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0592514310363 0.0443174109184 134% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.