When archaeologists make an interesting discovery, they often make overly ambitious claims about the value of their finds. The case of the Archaeopteryx is a case in point. The discovery of the first Archaeopteryx fossils made quite an impression on the field of dinosaur studies when researchers proposed that the Archaeopteryx was, in fact, not a dinosaur at all, but was instead, a bird. However, a careful consideration of the physical evidence suggests that such claims may have been made prematurely in that Archaeopteryx fossils have a large number of characteristics that are classic features of dinosaurs, rather than birds. First, when you consider the overall body structure of an Archaeopteryx fossil, you can't fail to notice that all specimens possess a long, tail composed of bony vertebrae. The similarity to the tails of many species of dinosaurs, or to the tails of modern day reptiles for that matter, is obvious. The presence of this type of tail is decidedly not birdlike. Next, careful examination of the mouths of Archaeopteryx reveals a strong kinship to dinosaurs. Specifically, Archaeopteryx had teeth; modern-day birds lack this rather obvious physical trait. The teeth discovered with Archaeopteryx fossils are similar to those of smaller, carnivorous dinosaurs of the same era. A third point to emphasize is perhaps the most convincing of all. According to the analysis of many researchers, Archaeopteryx lacked a key characteristic that most people would consider practically synonymous with the nature of birds: flight. While a casual glance at an Archaeopteryx fossil might leave one with the impression of a generally birdlike shape, a careful analysis of the structure of the wings indicates that Archaeopteryx could not have flown.
Recently, there has been a ton of debate as to the classification of Archaeopteryx. More specifically, in regards to the passage, the writer puts forth the idea that all evidence shows Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur. In the listening passage, the lecturer is quick to point out there are some serious flaws in the writer's claims. In fact, the professor believes that the Archaeopteryx was actually a bird and their body structure shows that fact.
First and foremost, the author of the reading states that the tail of Archaeopteryx shows that this species belonged to dinosaurs. Some professionals in the same field, however, stand in firm opposition to this claim. In the listening, for example, the professor states that Archaeopteryx weighed one to two pounds, similar to the penguin's weight. He adds that the compact size of Archaeopteryx indicates that they should be classified as birds, not dinosaurs.
One group of scholars, represented by the writer, thinks that the presence of the teeth in Archaeopteryx's mouth indicates that they might be dinosaurs. Of course, though, not all experts in the field believe this is accurate. Again the speaker addresses this point when he states that the head and the mouth of Archaeopteryx are strong evidence that they should be classified as birds. He elaborates that Archaeopteryx's mouth was long and pointed and looked exactly like a peak, and the development of a peak always means that the species was a bird.
Finally, the author wraps his argument by posting that the analysis of wings' structure indicates that Archaeopteryx could not fly from one place to another.
Not surprisingly, the lecturer takes issue with his claim by contending that Archaeopteryx's wings were covered with feathers. He states that the primary characteristic of birds is the feather on the wings.
To sum up, the writer and professor hold conflicting views about Archaeopteryx's classification. It is clear that they will have trouble finding common ground on this issue
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-25 | Hrushikesh_Vaddoriya | 3 | view |
| 2022-09-24 | nusybah | 70 | view |
- Communal online encyclopedias represent one of the latest resources to be found on the Internet. They are in many respects like traditional printed encyclopedias collections of articles on various subjects. What is specific to these online encyclopedias, 70
- The cost of converting money from one national currency to another is very high Moreover differences in currency value can make market prices unstable discouraging international trade and travel A group of countries in Europe has been able to avoid many o 3
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?When teachers assign projects on which students must work together, the students learn much more effectively than when they are asked to work alone on projects.Use specific reasons and examples to supp 70
- One of the threats to endangered sea turtle species is the use of nets by commercial shrimp-fishing boats. When turtles get accidentally caught in the nets, they cannot rise to the surface of the ocean to breathe, and they die. Some people suggest that th 80
- UBecause of climate change more and more land that was once used to grow crops or provide food for animals is turning to dry unusable desert land There are many proposals about how to stop this process known as desertification A number of proposals involv 3
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 104, Rule ID: IN_REGARD_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'regarding' or 'with regard to'.
Suggestion: regarding; with regard to
...on of Archaeopteryx. More specifically, in regards to the passage, the writer puts forth the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, finally, first, however, if, look, so, as to, for example, in fact, of course, to sum up
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 : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 12.0772626932 166% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 22.412803532 161% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1682.0 1373.03311258 123% => OK
No of words: 324.0 270.72406181 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19135802469 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24264068712 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05650939097 2.5805825403 118% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.518518518519 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 488.7 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 29.6850829921 49.2860985944 60% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.9411764706 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0588235294 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.76470588235 7.06452816374 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.09492273731 147% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.27373068433 234% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.162234277585 0.272083759551 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0534222255329 0.0996497079465 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0277262051828 0.0662205650399 42% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0831092504066 0.162205337803 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0260336391443 0.0443174109184 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.75 8.42419426049 92% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.