Based on the reading agnostids were ancient animals that are primitive relatives of modern-day insects according to their fossils. Nevertheless, paleontologists could not certainly determine the eating and behaving manner of agnostids based on information that is gained from fossils. The article provides three theories about agnostids living. However, the lecturer explains that none of the theories are true and refutes each of the author’s theories.
The author argues that agnostids were free-swimming predators. According to the author, there were other types of primitive anthropods which were strong swimmers and predators. So agnostids can be swimmers and predators as well. In contrast, the lecturer demonstrates that swimming predators on open oceans have large and well developed eyes. She states that vision is necessary to track preys. However, she mentions that agnostids had tiny and poor developed eyes, and they were sometimes completely blind. She states that, in this case agnostids need to have other senses to chase the preys, but there is no evidence for this. As a result, the theory seems to be really dubious.
Furthermore, the reading passage holds the view that agnostids could be seafloor dwellers. The author gives examples of other primitive arthropods to support his theory. Nevertheless, the lecturer illustrates that seafloor dwellers typically do not move very fast and very far. According to the lecturer they localize in small geographic areas. However, she says agnostid fossils can be found in multiple geographic areas and this is an evidence that they can move from one area to another very fast. Therefore, they couldn't be seafloor dwellings.
Finally, the reading asserts the possibility that agnostids were parasites. The author gives an example of modern-day arthropods such as fleas, ticks, and mites to support his claim. The lecturer opposes this point by explaining that the population of parasites cannot be large, because the large population of parasites will kill the host. On the other hand, she mentions that the evidence shows that agnostids had very large populations. Consequently, this claim does not possess a strong support in order to be acceptable.
- TPO-34 - Integrated Writing Task A huge marine mammal known as Steller’s sea cow once lived in the waters around Bering Island off the coast of Siberia. It was described in 1741 by Georg W. Steller, a naturalist who was among the first Europeans to see 3
- Integrated 36 3
- TPO-31 - Integrated Writing Task A fossil skeleton of a dinosaur called Sinosauropteryx, preserved in volcanic ash, was discovered in Liaoning, China, in 1996. Interestingly, the fossil included a pattern of fine lines surrounding the skeletal bones. Some 76
- TPO-40 - Integrated Writing Task Many scientists believe it would be possible to maintain a permanent human presence on Mars or the Moon. On the other hand, conditions on Venus are so extreme and inhospitable that maintaining a human presence there would 73
- TPO-26 - Integrated Writing Task The zebra mussel, a freshwater shellfish native to Eastern Europe, has long been spreading out from its original habitats and has now reached parts of North America. There are reasons to believe that this invasion cannot b 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 518, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...a to another very fast. Therefore, they couldnt be seafloor dwellings. Finally, the...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, furthermore, however, nevertheless, really, so, therefore, well, in contrast, such as, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1886.0 1373.03311258 137% => OK
No of words: 344.0 270.72406181 127% => OK
Chars per words: 5.48255813953 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30665032142 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80603223931 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 145.348785872 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.520348837209 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 571.5 419.366225166 136% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 13.0662251656 176% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.9055175596 49.2860985944 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.0 110.228320801 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.9565217391 21.698381199 69% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.30434782609 7.06452816374 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.422059634801 0.272083759551 155% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.120784256977 0.0996497079465 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0815086834279 0.0662205650399 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.249595960018 0.162205337803 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0630736668011 0.0443174109184 142% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 48.81 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.91 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 63.6247240618 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.