The passage and lecture are arguing over a proper explanation for a mass-extinction event. The lecture lists three possible theories and he/she maintains one of these theories caused the mass-extinction. In contrast, the professor challenges these theories one by one and she mentions that none of these theories are not able to explain the mass-extinction well.
Firstly, it is said in the passage that declining the sea levels might cuase some species' death speciallly in shallow ocean and coastal lands and consequently, this situation resutled to mass-extinction. On the contrary, the lecturer rebuts this point and she asserts that, although sea level were fluctuated, costal and shallow cratures were learnt to cope with this problem. Futhermore, these fluctuations were happend gardually not aburuptly, therefore, fluctuaions of sea levels could not to lead to a mass extinction.
Secondly, the author suggests that the volcano activites got the climate cool which caused the mass-extinction. On the opposite side, the lecturer refuses this point and she states that the SO2 poduced by volcano, were in sky for a short period and SO2 would be combined with wate vapour and came back to soil by acid raning. Hence, SO2 pesence in sky did not last as much enough for cuasing climate cooling.
Finally, the author maintains that an asteriod hid made the mass extinction. The lecturer, however, objects this point and she points out there is no crater which was cuased by an asteriod collision. There is just a crater that is was cuased 2 million years before mass extinction. In result, there is no evidence for asteriod collision to prove the third theory.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 229, Rule ID: VBZ_VBD[1]
Message: Did you mean 'it'?
Suggestion: it
... collision. There is just a crater that is was cuased 2 million years before mass ...
^^
Line 7, column 232, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...llision. There is just a crater that is was cuased 2 million years before mass exti...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, well, in contrast, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1405.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 270.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2037037037 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05360046442 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89403388003 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.562962962963 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 417.6 419.366225166 100% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.7527442835 49.2860985944 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.076923077 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7692307692 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.3076923077 7.06452816374 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => 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: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.78 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.