Essay topics: 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.
The reading passage claims that the Agnostids were a marine animal about 450 million years ago and because there are not any significant fossil records of them, so, it is not simple to clarify the way of eating or the space of they lived. In this way the reading claims that there are three specific reason for possibility of the lifestyle of these creatures. While, the lecturer on the other hand, claims that these three argument are erroneous and she states theses features undoubtedly are not possible for agnostids living situation.
First, the lecture claims that the possibility of being agnostids a free-swimming predator is nearly zero. Because, these modern predators have an incredibly powerful and well developed eyes for chasing the prays while, according to the fossil records, the agnostids had an exceptionally minuscule, tiny eyes which by these eyes they were virtually blind which as one of the consequences they can not find the prays by eye chasing. And maybe there was other chasing mechanism which it is not supported by any evidences, so this supposition is also ridiculous as a scientific prospective.
Secondly, the lecturer refuses the seafloor dwellers assumption and claims that it is wrong reason either. Most primitive arthropods had this way of living and for that they were so slow. Meanwhile, according to the evidenced, they can not go very long distance while the agnostids had a vast geographical area which they can go through it and gathering the foods and moreover as a mater of the fact, they were remarkabely a speady creatures for some specific body statues.
Finally, the speaker is not convinced by the parasite argument in the reading which claims that the modern parasites like fleas, taiks and mites and also the agnostids on the other hand were the same kind. While, as the parasites had a special behavior that they absolutely kill their host, so they have not an abundant population also, they had a lot of different kinds of the parasites. While, the agnostids had a widespread population in one area as the fossile recored show this fact by gathering prolifically remnants of the agnostids in their houses.
Conclusively, it can be said that the whole argument of the reading is misleading and it is very crucial that the scientist have an eye on this fact.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-24 | jewel | 76 | view |
| 2020-01-03 | jason_linnil | 76 | view |
| 2019-12-20 | jewel | 80 | view |
| 2019-12-04 | shatealabo1110 | 70 | view |
| 2019-11-04 | p0uya | 85 | view |
- Carved stone balls are a curious type of artifact found at a number of locations in Scotland. They date from the late Neolithic period, around 4,000 years ago. They are round in shape; they were carved from several types of stone; most are about 70 mm in 70
- Carved stone balls are a curious type of artifact found at a number of locations in Scotland. They date from the late Neolithic period, around 4,000 years ago. They are round in shape; they were carved from several types of stone; most are about 70 mm in 71
- Starting in the 1960s and continuing until the 1980s, sailors in Russian submarines patrolling the North Alantic and Arctic Ocean would occasionally hear strange sounds. These underwater noises reminded the submarine crews of frog croaks, so they called t 65
- Carved stone balls are a curious type of artifact found at a number of locations in Scotland. They date from the late Neolithic period, around 4,000 years ago. They are round in shape; they were carved from several types of stone; most are about 70 mm in 70
- Starting in the 1960s and continuing until the 1980s, sailors in Russian submarines patrolling the North Alantic and Arctic Ocean would occasionally hear strange sounds. These underwater noises reminded the submarine crews of frog croaks, so they called t 60
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, well, while, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 22.412803532 174% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1935.0 1373.03311258 141% => OK
No of words: 388.0 270.72406181 143% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.98711340206 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43821085614 4.04702891845 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71871302656 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 145.348785872 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.474226804124 0.540411800872 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 605.7 419.366225166 144% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => 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: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 21.2450331126 137% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 69.0079319684 49.2860985944 140% => OK
Chars per sentence: 148.846153846 110.228320801 135% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.8461538462 21.698381199 138% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.15384615385 7.06452816374 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.369278485985 0.272083759551 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.138965843545 0.0996497079465 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.065872079004 0.0662205650399 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.198690067811 0.162205337803 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0681607399026 0.0443174109184 154% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 13.3589403974 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 53.8541721854 78% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.0289183223 132% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.74 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 63.6247240618 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.498013245 130% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.