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 article states that Agnostids were free-swimmer predators, seafloor dwellers, and parasites, and the author provides various reasons behind them. However, the professor explains that each of the author's reasons has weaknesses and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading claims that because the primitive arthropods were strong swimmers and plenty of smaller organisms in the ancient ocean, Agnostids were free-swimmer predators. The professor refutes this point by saying that they were not predators. He states that Agnostids had very poor-blind eyes that they can not prey on others, but they eat other organisms with their special senses.
Second, the article posits that they were seafloor dwellers because of other types of primitive arthropods living in the seafloor and they survived by grazing on bacteria or dead organisms. However, the Professor mentions that Agnostids can move fast from one place to another and they stay localized rather than scattered. According to the professor, because they easily moving from one place to another, why do they live on the seafloor.
Third, the reading says that they were parasites like some modern-day arthropods. However, the professor opposes this point by saying that Agnostids was a very larger size than to be a parasite. We also learn that they were great in numbers and the host would kill them.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-05 | YasamanEsml | 86 | view |
| 2023-06-19 | Vivian Chang | 76 | view |
| 2023-02-07 | reza_fattahi | 73 | view |
| 2023-01-30 | reza_fattahi | 86 | view |
| 2023-01-30 | reza_fattahi | 75 | view |
- Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws 50
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the owner of Movies Galore a chain of video rental stores In order to reverse the recent decline in our profits we must reduce operating expenses at Movies Galore s ten video rental stores Since we are famous fo 80
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement In twenty years there will be fewer cars in use than there are today Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 66
- 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 80
- Burning coal in power plants produces a waste product called coal ash a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals Environmentalists in the United States are concerned about the damage such harmful chemicals may be doing to the 75
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, second, so, third, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 5.01324503311 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1167.0 1373.03311258 85% => OK
No of words: 218.0 270.72406181 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.35321100917 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.84250218741 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53744369129 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 120.0 145.348785872 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.550458715596 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 341.1 419.366225166 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.1234260317 49.2860985944 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.090909091 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8181818182 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.54545454545 7.06452816374 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.183703489517 0.272083759551 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0782129328699 0.0996497079465 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0436393178226 0.0662205650399 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119039005885 0.162205337803 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0402840917925 0.0443174109184 91% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.75 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 63.6247240618 85% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.