tpo43
Both the reading and listening parts offer two opposite views about the assumptions of how agnostides may have lived. While the passage lists the possible theories about agnostides' living habits, the lecturer, on the other hand, refutes all of them and present some pieces of evidence to call those theories into the question.
First of all, the article claims that the feasible type of living habit could be free-swimming predators since there are groups of primitive arthropods that strongly swam and actively preyed. Otherwise, the professor casts doubt on the accuracy of this surmise, as she explains, although there were some arthropods which swam and preyed actively, they possessed large eyes with the high-developed vision, which aid them during the hunting. However, agnostides owned poor-developed eye or even they were blind. Therefore, if they were a powerful hunter, they had to chase the prey with another extremely-developed sensory organ; otherwise, there is no kind of developed organs in the fossil samples. Consequently, agnostides could not be free-swimming predators.
Secondly, meanwhile, the text refers to some examples of initial arthropods which dwelled on the seafloor as the reason that agnostides were seafloor dwellers too, the instructor, on the other hand, refutes the accuracy of this assumption too. As she describes, the seafloor dwellers do not own the ability of movement with high speed and in long distance. Thus, they merely localized in the specific and small geographic location. On the contrary, agnostides fossils are funded in the multiple different geographic which illustrates agnostides swam so fast and in prolong distance which is unusual among the seafloor animals.
Finally, the passage assumes that there is a possibility that agnostides were parasites, as there are some modern-day species of arthropods which are parasites. Despite this reason, the lecturer rejects this hypothesis too. As she claims, the parasites should stay in the small-size population, since its increment can kill the host animal. Furthermore, the population of agnostides were large, and this great size of population roll out the surmise of parasites too.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-10-06 | Aliakbari94 | 80 | view |
| 2021-10-05 | Aliakbari94 | 70 | view |
| 2021-03-02 | taisuke571 | 85 | view |
| 2020-10-31 | nj-me | 70 | view |
| 2020-10-25 | 想不到一个好名字 | 80 | view |
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoni 50
- tpo40 80
- Claim: Researchers should not limit their investigations to only those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate, practical application.Reason: It is impossible to predict the outcome of a line of research with any certainty.W 83
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? In the past young people depended on their parents for making decisions. Today, young people are better able to make decisions on their own. 73
- tpo33-integrated writing 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...call those theories into the question. First of all, the article claims that th...
^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... could not be free-swimming predators. Secondly, meanwhile, the text refers to ...
^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...is unusual among the seafloor animals. Finally, the passage assumes that there ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, well, while, kind of, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1880.0 1373.03311258 137% => OK
No of words: 339.0 270.72406181 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.54572271386 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29091512845 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05146807881 2.5805825403 118% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 145.348785872 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.572271386431 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 575.1 419.366225166 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 1.25165562914 639% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.7455357914 49.2860985944 129% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.333333333 110.228320801 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.3333333333 7.06452816374 160% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.458401764934 0.272083759551 168% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.140312006767 0.0996497079465 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0749814928175 0.0662205650399 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.252006779825 0.162205337803 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.01382357281 0.0443174109184 31% => 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: 16.0 13.3589403974 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 53.8541721854 76% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.21 12.2367328918 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.2 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 63.6247240618 151% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.