Fossil trade
The lecture and the reading are both about the trading of fossil discoveries to particular, common, rich people. The author of the article feels that this is not good for science and for the human civilization. Nevertheless, the lecturer disputes the claims made in the lecture. Her position is that reasons exposed by the author are too exaggerated.
According to the reading, it is not an advantage that rares and important fossils are being sold to private and wealthy people because they do not allow public to observe them. The article mentions that this attitude could carry in the public in a loss of interest in this important scientific topic. This specific argument is challenged by the professor. Instead, she claims that this action could lead people to be more exposed on fossils due to the wide spread of fossils in different areas of the country.
Secondly, the author suggests that independent discoveries of fossils might restrict scientists to come, appreciate and study potentially important discoveries about dinosaurs. Also, it is said in the article that wealthy people are able to pay as much as they wish for these discoveries, competing with institutions that can not afford them. The lecturer, however, asserts that these arguments are wrong. She points out and clarifies that most of the fossils must be identified, tested and examined by experts, therefore, scientists do not miss out the discoveries.
Finally, the author of the reading posits that commercial fossil collectors do not matter whether they destroy or not a scientific evidence in excavations. Also, he contends that due to their lack of trained, they do not pay attention to specific and crucial features of the fossils. In contrast, the lecturer's stance is that even though this often occurs, a large amount of unearth evidence about ancient species is thanks to these people.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-10-20 | Hizaak | 80 | view |
| 2019-10-16 | heshan007 | 73 | view |
| 2019-08-04 | farshad_hom | 83 | view |
| 2014-07-16 | mitranasrabadi | 85 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 302, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lecturers'' or 'lecturer's'?
Suggestion: lecturers'; lecturer's
...atures of the fossils. In contrast, the lecturers stance is that even though this often o...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, in contrast
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 : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 22.412803532 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1575.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 306.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14705882353 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18244613648 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75078193071 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.529411764706 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 477.9 419.366225166 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.3427286162 49.2860985944 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.0 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.73333333333 7.06452816374 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.207758394592 0.272083759551 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0600402826975 0.0996497079465 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0900604899914 0.0662205650399 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113703638224 0.162205337803 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0399572923092 0.0443174109184 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.81 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => 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.