The passage and lecture are both about Agnostids which were a group of marine animals that extinict about 450 million years ago. The passages claims that there are several different theories about how agnostids may have lived. The lecturer casts doubt on claim made in article, she states, these theories are weak to illustrate how these animals have lived.
First, the author says agnostids were free- swimming predators and can hunt smaller animals, because agnostids were a type of primitive arthropods which were a strong swimmers and active predators. This point challenged by lecturer, she states, the predators always have a large eyes to be abile to follow their preys and couch them, instead agnostids had a very small eyes and may be blind, therefore they could not be as a swimming – predators unless they might have a specific organ to detect their preys.
Second, the argues, agnostids may have dwelled on the seafloor, there are plenty of small organisms in the ocean for them to prey on. This argument is rebutted by professor, she posits, the animals which live in seafloor do not have ability to move fast and stay in localized area, but angostids do not stay in small area , they were found in large area and with long distance , that give a prove these animals move fast.
Finally the writer says, there is possibility that the agnostids were parasites, because many modern species of arthropods exist as parasites. The lecturer in the other hand suggests, parasites are small population which stay on a large animal to prey on it, the agnostids were very large population and many fossils found in many areas, therefore this role out the theory about agnostids may be parasits.
The passage and lecture are both about Agnostids which were a group of marine animals that extinict about 450 million years ago. The passages claims that there are several different theories about how agnostids may have lived. The lecturer casts doubt on claim made in article, she states, these theories are weak to illustrate how these animals have lived.
First, the author says agnostids were free- swimming predators and can hunt smaller animals, because agnostids were a type of primitive arthropods which were a strong swimmers and active predators. This point challenged by lecturer, she states, the predators always have a large eyes to be abile to follow their preys and couch them, instead agnostids had a very small eyes and may be blind, therefore they could not be as a swimming – predators unless they might have a specific organ to detect their preys.
Second, the argues, agnostids may have dwelled on the seafloor, there are plenty of small organisms in the ocean for them to prey on. This argument is rebutted by professor, she posits, the animals which live in seafloor do not have ability to move fast and stay in localized area, but angostids do not stay in small area , they were found in large area and with long distance , that give a prove these animals move fast.
Finally the writer says, there is possibility that the agnostids were parasites, because many modern species of arthropods exist as parasites. The lecturer in the other hand suggests, parasites are small population which stay on a large animal to prey on it, the agnostids were very large population and many fossils found in many areas, therefore this role out the theory about agnostids may be parasits.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2021-03-10 | talelaldabous | 80 | view |
- The reading passage and lecture are talking about distinction which has occured to species at the end of the Triassic period The writer claims three reasons for these extinction However the lecturer casts doubt on claim made in article She believes non of 60
- The reading passage and lecture are both talking about glass building material these building may injury birds because they cannot distinguish between glass and air space The author gives three solutions to treat this problem The lecture casts doubt on cl 60
- The reading passage and lecturer are both discussing one painting which was or was not painted by Rembrandt The author claims three reason to explain that this paint was not for Rembrandt The lecturer casts doubt on claim made in article He says that all 61
- The reading and lecture are both about see otter a small mammal that live in western coast of North America The author claims that pollution is the main cause for see otter declination The lecture casts doubt on claim made in the article She says that pre 78
- In our wold there are many celebrities and famous people who have their opnion that may influance others around them The question is whether those celebrities more important for young people than older or not This can be weighed in many aspects Admittedly 76
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 23 in 30
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 9 12
No. of Words: 286 250
No. of Characters: 1374 1200
No. of Different Words: 143 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.112 4.2
Average Word Length: 4.804 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.32 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 87 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 68 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 49 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 31 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 31.778 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.046 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.778 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.431 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.7 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.207 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4