The reading passage and the lecture have a discussion on whether bees existed 200 million years ago. The author mentions three potential theories that bees do not. On the contrary, the professor considers none of them would be persuasive with certainty.
First, the reading suggests that no bee fossils have been found as evidence. However, the opinion has been opposed by the professor with new proof. The professor says that to preserve an insect as a fossil, it must cover by a tree resin which is rare at the time. As a result, the reading has been challenged heavily.
Moreover, the author claims that there are no flowering plants to interact with bees. On the other hand, the lecturer states that bees might excite before flowering plants appear and they still manage to live, after flowering plants show up, bees adapt to the change and ramain. The opinion differs from the reading.
Finally, the author believes that fossil structures lack details, while the professor in the listening material maintains that the chemical to prevent bees from water is also found on the nets, which is evidence to prove. Thus, the reading passage has been refuted again.
Therefore, the speaker departs totally from the opinions on the topic made in the reading.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, moreover, so, still, therefore, thus, while, as a result, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 22.412803532 45% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1049.0 1373.03311258 76% => OK
No of words: 211.0 270.72406181 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.97156398104 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.81127787577 4.04702891845 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.3356611961 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 127.0 145.348785872 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.601895734597 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 313.2 419.366225166 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 52.0271890685 49.2860985944 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 80.6923076923 110.228320801 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.2307692308 21.698381199 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.76923076923 7.06452816374 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.1 13.3589403974 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.25 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.