The reading mainly presents that there are three theories about how agnostids may have survived. However, the listening challenges what are stated in the passage by providing three strong evidences.
Firstly, in the reading, it is said that the agnostids may have been free-swimming predators that feed on smaller animals since other types of primitive arthropods were strong swimmers and active predators. In contrast, the listening holds an opposed view that the eyes of agnostids are too small, and there is no evidence of fossil record of their special sensory organs to catch up prey.
Secondly, the passage asserts that agnostids may have inhabited on the seafloor. However, the professor also maintains an opposite opinion that many agnostids species dwelled on multiple geographic areas. Because seafloor dwellers move slowly across the seafloor and remain living in localized areas.
Finally, the author of reading passage believes that many species of modern-day arthropods exist as parasites. On the other hand, the lecturer disagrees it with the point that the populations of parasites are not very large. Since too many parasites would kill off the host organisms they live on. However, the populations of many agnostids were in fact very large.
Under this circumstance, the third theories made by the reading passage is unconvincing.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 225, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Since” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ations of parasites are not very large. Since too many parasites would kill off the h...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, however, may, second, secondly, so, third, well, in contrast, in fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => 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: 1142.0 1373.03311258 83% => OK
No of words: 211.0 270.72406181 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.41232227488 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.81127787577 4.04702891845 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66931111065 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 125.0 145.348785872 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.592417061611 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 352.8 419.366225166 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.5615958211 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.1666666667 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5833333333 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.91666666667 7.06452816374 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More 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: 0.46748367708 0.272083759551 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.149971526445 0.0996497079465 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.109910394322 0.0662205650399 166% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.210780409723 0.162205337803 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.108108297712 0.0443174109184 244% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 53.8541721854 85% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.8 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.04 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.