The reading passage and the lecture are talking about agnostids, which were a group of marine animals that become extincted, and how these species lkived The writer claims several theories about how agnostids lived. However, the lecturer debates these therories. She contents, unfortunatly no one of these suggestions is correct.
First theory the author states, agnostids were free- swimming predators. They lived in ocean and hunted smaller animals as other type of primitive arthropods. The spesker contradicts this statement. She mentions, ocean primiyive arthropods have alarge eyes to enable them to swim in ocean. Moreover, agnostids did not have such a big eyes. They were almost blind. Furthermore, in order to see in deep ocean, they should have sensor. But, there is no evidence about presence of any sensor.
Second, the author asserts, agnostids were a seafloor dwellers. They would have survive on seafloor and feed on dead organisms. The professor refutes this point. She elaborates on movement of seadwelling species. She mentions, seafloor species move very slow in deep ocean to be able to get small seaorganisms and, eat them. On the other hand, agnostids move very fast. So, they can not be considerd as sea floor dewellers.
Finally, the passage points out, agnostids are type of parasites. The speaker has different idea. She believes, parasite has very small size and stay in limited site. Moreover,agnostids had large size and move faslty from space to spase.
The reading passage and the lecture are talking about agnostids, which were a group of marine animals that become extincted, and how these species lkived The writer claims several theories about how agnostids lived. However, the lecturer debates these therories. She contents, unfortunatly no one of these suggestions is correct.
First theory the author states, agnostids were free- swimming predators. They lived in ocean and hunted smaller animals as other type of primitive arthropods. The spesker contradicts this statement. She mentions, ocean primiyive arthropods have alarge eyes to enable them to swim in ocean. Moreover, agnostids did not have such a big eyes. They were almost blind. Furthermore, in order to see in deep ocean, they should have sensor. But, there is no evidence about presence of any sensor.
Second, the author asserts, agnostids were a seafloor dwellers. They would have survive on seafloor and feed on dead organisms. The professor refutes this point. She elaborates on movement of seadwelling species. She mentions, seafloor species move very slow in deep ocean to be able to get small seaorganisms and, eat them. On the other hand, agnostids move very fast. So, they can not be considerd as sea floor dewellers.
Finally, the passage points out, agnostids are type of parasites. The speaker has different idea. She believes, parasite has very small size and stay in limited site. Moreover,agnostids had large size and move faslty from space to spase.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-08-20 | talelaldabous | 65 | view |
- 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 cl 80
- The reading and passage are both discus the effect of increase of population and agriculture in declination of bird population The author claim that increase in settlement and growth of agriculture in addition to increase in using of pesticide will cause 76
- The passage and lecture are bouth talking about Guackers which emits in Russian word frog sound The passage claim several reason which cause the odd of this sound The lecturer casts doubt on claim made in article She suggests there is a problem with each 66
- The passage and lecture talk about several solution that prevent birds from injuries from using glass material for building the author elaborates on three solutions to prevent this accident The lecturer casts doubt on claim made in article He says non of 71
- The reading passage and the lecture are both talk about silver coins brrought by Nores from Europ to United State The argument is if these coins have a historical value or its just fake The writer states these coins do not have any value He elaborates on 60
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The reading passage and the lecture are ...
^^
Line 2, column 33, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rect. First theory the author states, agnostids were free- swimming predators....
^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...evidence about presence of any sensor. Second, the author asserts, agnostids we...
^^
Line 3, column 82, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'survived'.
Suggestion: survived
...re a seafloor dwellers. They would have survive on seafloor and feed on dead organisms....
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 176, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , agnostids
... size and stay in limited site. Moreover,agnostids had large size and move faslty from spa...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, second, so, well, talking about, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 12.0772626932 17% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1250.0 1373.03311258 91% => OK
No of words: 237.0 270.72406181 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27426160338 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.92362132708 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70201693403 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 145.348785872 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.637130801688 0.540411800872 118% => OK
syllable_count: 385.2 419.366225166 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 3.25607064018 307% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => 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: 22.0 13.0662251656 168% => OK
Sentence length: 10.0 21.2450331126 47% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.0568300578 49.2860985944 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 56.8181818182 110.228320801 52% => More chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 10.7727272727 21.698381199 50% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 4.86363636364 7.06452816374 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 13.0 4.27373068433 304% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.350334692395 0.272083759551 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0793060270063 0.0996497079465 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.159512149936 0.0662205650399 241% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.231936865788 0.162205337803 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.265860579867 0.0443174109184 600% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.8 13.3589403974 66% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.33 53.8541721854 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 11.0289183223 65% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.1 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.6 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 6.0 10.498013245 57% => Gunning_fog is low.
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 65.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.5 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.