TPO43
The reading and the lecture both discuss how agnostids were lived. The passage provides three theories to answer this question, including free-swimming predators, seafloor dwellers and parasites. However, the lecture refutes all of them and states that all above theories are not correct.
First, being as free-swimming predators. According to the reading, the agnostids have this ability to be free-swimming predators, because the first generation of arthropods had been this ability and they could swim freely and prey the small living organisms. On the other hand, the professor says that the predators should have large eyes and high quality vision to prey and it is an essential ability for them. Whereas, all agnostids had tiny eyes and even they were blind, then this theory refutes.
Second, being as seafloor dwellers. The reading claims that because of existing some reasons according to the fossils and primitive arthropods, the agnostids could live in the sea floor and survive there. In contrast, the lecture say that the seafloor dwellers cannot swim very fast and go far distance. On the other hand, the agnotids could swim fast and change their habitats easily, then go far distances. Thus, this theory is wrong as well.
Finally, being as parasities. The reading states that the agnostids have been parasites and live on the large organisms. However, the professor refutes this theory by saying that the parasites do not have a large population, whereas from fossils that are found indicates they were very a lot and all their fossils are at one place.
In summary, the lectures refutes all theories which are stated by the reading and provides several reasons.
| 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 |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, second, so, then, thus, well, whereas, in contrast, in summary, 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 : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 19.0 30.3222958057 63% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1423.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 272.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23161764706 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06108636974 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54532602636 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.503676470588 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 421.2 419.366225166 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 57.1770482252 49.2860985944 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.9375 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.625 7.06452816374 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.357016455338 0.272083759551 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.113726038757 0.0996497079465 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0832906020367 0.0662205650399 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.184346641283 0.162205337803 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.097144970375 0.0443174109184 219% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.9 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.