tpo47
Both the reading and the lecture are about Pterosaurs which were a large animal and a type of winged reptiles. This group of animal was living in dinosaurs' time. The reading provides three reasons that Pterosaurs's wings were useless and it could not fly. The lecturer casts doubts on the claims made in the article and finds all mentioned arguments dubious.
First of all, the author of reading declares that since the reptiles are cold-blooded animals; hence, they have too low metabolism for obtaining energy. It goes without saying Pterosaurs did not have enough energy for flying. This point is challenged by the professor. She points out that the discoveries have recently been shown that Pterosaurs had dense wings with hairs which looked like fur; consequently, as we all know, fur cover is a factor for warm-blooded animals to warm up them. As a result, it may have generated its needed energy for powered flight.
Second, the article contends that heavy weight of Pterosaurs could not have allowed it to fly. This argument is rebutted by the lecturer. She claims that the analyzing of Pterosaurs's fossil caused researchers to understand that Pterosaurs had a special anatomic feature so that its bone were hollow instead of solid. Needless to say that a hollow bone includes a low weight; subsequently, its bones would not have had the needed power for flight.
Finally, the reading passage proposes that Pterosaurs's back leg muscles were too weak for flying unlike birds that can take off from ground with jumping or running; conversely, the professor believes that there is a big difference between a bird and Pterosaurs. The birds usually walk on two legs; however, Pterosaurs had 4 legs such as some modern animals like bat. The lecturer elaborates on this by mentioning that because Pterosaurs could walk on four legs not just back legs, so it is plausible that this animal could have flown.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 35, Rule ID: HEAVY_WEIGHT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'heavyweight'?
Suggestion: heavyweight
...t. Second, the article contends that heavy weight of Pterosaurs could not have allowed it...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 337, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...; however, Pterosaurs had 4 legs such as some modern animals like bat. The lectur...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, conversely, finally, first, hence, however, if, look, may, second, so, such as, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1598.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 319.0 270.72406181 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00940438871 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22617688928 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57831607075 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 145.348785872 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.579937304075 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 477.0 419.366225166 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 3.25607064018 276% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.3799641577 49.2860985944 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.875 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9375 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.75 7.06452816374 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.426493778131 0.272083759551 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.124425470029 0.0996497079465 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0670456500464 0.0662205650399 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.239118644624 0.162205337803 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0484251827771 0.0443174109184 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.