london and german fossils
The reading passage introduces the opinion of Fred Hoyle who believed that the London and German fossils of Archaeopteryx were not authentic and they were faked to support Darwin's theory of evolution. However, the speaker in the lecture casts doubt on the claims made in the article. She states that the fossils were actually genuine.
First and foremost, the article assumes that Owen forged the fossils to support the new theory since he was a staunch supporter. The writer further indicates that the fossils were discovered only two years after Darwin published his theory. Nevertheless, the lecturer argues that Owen did not fake the fossils owing to the fact that he was not an advocate for Darwin's model. In addition, Owen himself wrote two papers on these fossils and if they were proved fraudulent, he would be risking his career and credibility.
Secondly, the author maintains that the Hoyle was convinced that the fossils were too perfect to be real, especially when compared to other fossils which did not have any evidence for feathers. Moreover, Hoyle held that the lines on the fossils were probably made through impressions in a thin cement layer. The listening, on the other hand, refutes this idea be declaring that Hoyle was n astronomer and he knew nothing about fossil formations. Plus, the remains were unearthed in a smooth limestone, and that's why it yielded flawless fossils.
Lastly, the excerpt points out that the two parts of the fossil did not match since one of them was more preserved than the other. Consequently, Hoyle was suspicious that the perfect half was the false one. The lecturer explains that this pattern happens when the creature falls on a hard surface then get covered by limestone. Besides, scientists polished one half to make the details clearer, which may have led to this discrepancy.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 507, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: that's
...re unearthed in a smooth limestone, and thats why it yielded flawless fossils. L...
^^^^^
Line 13, column 436, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...which may have led to this discrepancy.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, besides, consequently, first, however, if, lastly, may, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, then, in addition, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => 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: 1546.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 306.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0522875817 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18244613648 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5217919037 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 145.348785872 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.575163398693 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 466.2 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.3274778136 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.066666667 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.6 7.06452816374 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.243934617343 0.272083759551 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.07378510074 0.0996497079465 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0691941156372 0.0662205650399 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142463128433 0.162205337803 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0785298195813 0.0443174109184 177% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.17 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 63.6247240618 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.