Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they oppose
specific points made in the reading passage.
Both the reading and the lecture are about the consequences of selling ancient fossils to private hands. While the reading advocates prohibiting such trading, the professor is sure that the negative effect is greatly exaggerated. She claims that positive impact, in fact, outweighs negative results.
Firstly, the reading discusses the importance of ancient fossils for the public. The author is confident that if they have been sold to private collectors, the public will never see the petrified remains again, so it will soon lose interest in such “rare and important fossils.” However, the lecturer does not think the effect will be as described. On the contrary, she is convinced that privately-owned collections will get greater exposure to the public as even the poorest institution will be able to buy them. Based on the above, the professor contradicts the first point of the reading.
Secondly, the reading passage claims that if the fossils are available for purchase by everybody, scientists lose access to them, and this can lead to missing some crucial discoveries in the field of extinct life forms. But the professor disagrees with this point either. She states that scientists identify every fossil before putting it for sale so scholars can get all the needed information about it even when the most malicious businessman buys it. Therefore, the professor’s point is opposed to the one presented by the author of the reading.
Thirdly, the text elaborates on the fact that when one fossil is sold, many more are missed because buyers are never willing to do the fieldwork and unearth new petrified remains. However, the woman disagrees with this idea. She claims that private owners will, in fact, find even more fossils. They will do the fieldwork and, with joint efforts, will find more than specific universities would extract alone. In this way, the professor undermines the argument presented in the reading.
To sum up, the author of the passage and the lecturer have fundamentally different approaches to the problem of fossil trading. When the former exposes negative consequences of petrified remains coming into private hands, the latter does not think they are persuasive enough to prohibit selling. She believes that there are a lot more positive effects than negative ones.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, while, in fact, on the contrary, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1942.0 1373.03311258 141% => OK
No of words: 372.0 270.72406181 137% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.22043010753 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39173103935 4.04702891845 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68171805882 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 145.348785872 134% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.524193548387 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 594.0 419.366225166 142% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.8368048386 49.2860985944 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.210526316 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5789473684 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.57894736842 7.06452816374 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 4.45695364238 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.131973444336 0.272083759551 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0435449315844 0.0996497079465 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0418124831475 0.0662205650399 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0735984507875 0.162205337803 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0289717164556 0.0443174109184 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.78 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 63.6247240618 156% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.