Reasons why Pterosaurs were not capable of powered flight.
The text and the lecture offer two opposing views on whether Pterosaurs were able to powered flight or not. While the reading passage asserts that they were not capable of power flying, the professor claims that recent researches confirm the possibility of Pterosaurs' powered flight, and refutes each of the reasons author has given.
First, the article posits that powered flight saps a lot of energy from an animal, and because Pterosaurs were cold-blooded, so they had not enough energy to be able to fly as such. On the other hand, the lecturer refutes this by stating that recent discoveries substantiate that Pterosaurs had some kind of hair cover over their skins which means, based of our knowledge of biology, that they were warm-blooded animals. Thus, their metabolism was sufficient to provide them with enough energy required for powered-flight.
Next, the passage claims that Pterosaurs were not able to powered-flight since they were extraordinarily heavy. On the contrary, the professor refutes this assertion by explaining that Pterosaurs were even light compared to their size. According to the professor, new findings have shown that those animals had hollow bones which makes them so light compared to their giraffe-scale height and 12-meter wings that it is reasonable to assume that they could remain in the air flying as long as they wanted.
Finally, the author avers that Pterosaurs were not capable of powered-flight since they had not strong back legs. In contrast, the lecturer rejects the basis of the author's reasoning. The lecturer states that comparing Pterosaurs with birds is not correct because birds in flying depend on their hind limbs while Pterosaurs were relying on all their 4 limbs in flight. She adds that observations of some modern flyers confirm this idea. For example, bats are dependant on their four limbs in flying.
- Young people enjoy life more than older people do. 76
- Describing the ways in which elephants fascinate humans - TPO51 76
- Giving expert commentary by professors is of great benefit to the professors themselves as well as to their universities and the general public. 90
- Reasons why Pterosaurs were not capable of powered flight. 80
- Students in a university club want to help others, but they can choose only one project a year: A: help those students in nearby primary school with reading and mathematics, B: Help people who cannot afford to build or rent a home to build a house, C: Vis 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... each of the reasons author has given. First, the article posits that powered f...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...gh energy required for powered-flight. Next, the passage claims that Pterosaurs...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...the air flying as long as they wanted. Finally, the author avers that Pterosaur...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 464, Rule ID: DEPENDENT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'dependent' on?
Suggestion: dependent
...onfirm this idea. For example, bats are dependant on their four limbs in flying.
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, so, thus, while, for example, in contrast, kind of, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 22.412803532 165% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1566.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 302.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18543046358 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1687104957 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68902716 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.546357615894 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 461.7 419.366225166 110% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.6150293115 49.2860985944 135% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.461538462 110.228320801 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2307692308 21.698381199 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.84615384615 7.06452816374 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.395971132315 0.272083759551 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.156526604278 0.0996497079465 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.134300444769 0.0662205650399 203% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.279528907348 0.162205337803 172% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.103930855149 0.0443174109184 235% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.