TPO 43
The main idea of both the lecture and the passage is that some theories about eating habitats of agnostics are correct or not. Considering this, the author introduces three theories about what agnostics ate. The professor, on the other hand, unequivocally challenges whatever contended in the reading by posing some problems.
First, as claimed by the passage, agnostics might be free-swimming predators that hunt small organisms in the ancient ocean like some other types of primitive arthropods which were strong swimmers and active predators. The lecturer, nevertheless, contradicts the author's view and explains that primitive arthropods had large, strong eyes which helped them to find and hunt preys animals. But agnostics had small poor eyes somehow blind eyes which decrease the possibility that agnostics were active predators. also, they did not have other strong senses which were able to use for hunting small animals.
Second of all, both the lecture and the passage discuss the possibility that agnostics might be seafloor dwellers. The passage goes to mentions that according to some type primitive arthropods agnostics might live on the seafloor. they ate dead organisms or grazed on bacteria. In contrast, the lecturer explains that despite some types of arthropod which lived on the seafloor and localize in the restricted area, agnostics spread in the vast area. also, agnostics moved very fast which very strange feature for a seafloor dweller.
The last point discussed in the passage is that agnostics might be parasites which feed on living animal like some modern-day arthropods. However, the professor rejects this by declaring that numbers of parasites are limited because if they did exist in the large numbers they would kill off a hosted animal. The numbers of agnostics are huge enough to rule out the theory that agnostics were parasites.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-03-22 | sonyeoso | 80 | view |
| 2023-02-24 | m.ghoroobi | 70 | view |
| 2023-02-20 | m.ghoroobi | view | |
| 2022-09-03 | Allenwlh | 70 | view |
| 2022-04-16 | lhklin | 75 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e reading by posing some problems. First, as claimed by the passage, agnost...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 521, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Also
...y that agnostics were active predators. also, they did not have other strong senses ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... to use for hunting small animals. Second of all, both the lecture and the ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 241, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: They
...s agnostics might live on the seafloor. they ate dead organisms or grazed on bacteri...
^^^^
Line 9, column 460, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Also
...rea, agnostics spread in the vast area. also, agnostics moved very fast which very s...
^^^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ge feature for a seafloor dweller. The last point discussed in the passage ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, well, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 5.01324503311 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1589.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 296.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36824324324 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14784890444 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61558714447 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.533783783784 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 482.4 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.5438858383 49.2860985944 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.933333333 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7333333333 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.2 7.06452816374 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.236881635361 0.272083759551 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0922535409667 0.0996497079465 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0581054650125 0.0662205650399 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.141205087029 0.162205337803 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0631690334523 0.0443174109184 143% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => 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: 13.87 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.