TPO-43 - Integrated Writing Task
Agnostids were a group of marine animals that became extinct about 450 million years ago. Agnostid fossils can be found in rocks in many areas around the world. From the fossil remains, we know that agnostids were primitive arthropods-relatives of modern-day insects. However, the fossil information does not allow paleontologists to determine with certainty what agnostids ate or how they behaved. There are several different theories about how agnostids may have lived.
Free-Swimming Predators
First, the agnostids may have been free-swimming predators that hunted smaller animals. It is known that other types of primitive arthropods were strong swimmers and active predators, so it is reasonable that the agnostids may have lived that way as well And while the agnostids were small, sometimes just six millimeters long, there were plenty of smaller organisms in the ancient ocean for them to prey on.
Seafloor Dwellers
Second, they may have dwelled on the seafloor. Again, there are examples of other types of primitive arthropods living this way, so it is possible that agnostids did too. On the seafloor they would have survived by scavenging dead organisms or by grazing on bacteria.
Parasites
Third, there is the possibility that the agnostids were parasites, living on and feeding off larger organisms. One reason that this seems possible is that there are many species of modern-day arthropods that exist as parasites, such as fleas, ticks, and mites. The agnostids might have lived on primitive fish or even on other, larger arthropods.
Agnostids, a group of animal which has been extinct approximately about 450 million years ago, is the topic of both reading and lecture. While the writer suggests some theories of how these animals lived, the lecturer will make some arguments about how this assumptions and theories are not correct, which will be described hereunder.
First, the writer asserts that due to the similarity between the primitive arthropods which were excellent swimmers and active predators, agnostids are believed to be free-swimming predators. Which can be an inference that they could have eaten small organisms that inhabited in an ocean. On the contrary, the professor conduct with the idea, owing to predators in open oceans should have well-developed eyes while these animals have had small, tiny eyes and even some of them were blind. Moreover, she believes that for being a predator some other sense should have developed which there isn't such a kind of sense being observed in these animals.
Second, the reading makes some assertion about they may have been seafloor dwellers because of the same reasoning about likening among them and the primitive ones. Also that they could have survived by eating dead organisms or by gazing on bacteria. On the other side, the professor claims that for such a characteristics they should have been located in small regions, but the piece of evidence shows the opposite one by finding documents that they were scattered through several lakes and oceans.
Utterly, the reading claims that they were parasites which can be concluded that they lived on larger organism. This claim has been made due to some modern arthropods namely , fleas and tricks which live this way. On the other hand, the lecturer firmly believes that such a animals should live in small population while there has been some discovering so many fossils were occupied a small location.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 254, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...urer will make some arguments about how this assumptions and theories are not correc...
^^^^
Line 2, column 192, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Which” 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.
...believed to be free-swimming predators. Which can be an inference that they could hav...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 589, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...sense should have developed which there isnt such a kind of sense being observed in ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 164, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...ning among them and the primitive ones. Also that they could have survived by eating...
^^^^
Line 3, column 304, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a characteristic' or simply 'characteristics'?
Suggestion: a characteristic; characteristics
...ide, the professor claims that for such a characteristics they should have been located in small ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 173, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ade due to some modern arthropods namely , fleas and tricks which live this way. O...
^^
Line 4, column 272, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... the lecturer firmly believes that such a animals should live in small population...
^
Line 4, column 272, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a animal' or simply 'animals'?
Suggestion: a animal; animals
... the lecturer firmly believes that such a animals should live in small population while t...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, may, moreover, second, so, well, while, even so, kind of, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1579.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 308.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12662337662 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51047177916 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548701298701 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 488.7 419.366225166 117% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.4799500366 49.2860985944 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.583333333 110.228320801 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6666666667 21.698381199 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.16666666667 7.06452816374 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 4.19205298013 191% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.365952493058 0.272083759551 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.132030300876 0.0996497079465 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0477013145744 0.0662205650399 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.205334028531 0.162205337803 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.068464635883 0.0443174109184 154% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 13.3589403974 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 53.8541721854 86% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.18 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.