TPO43-Integrated writing
The reading passage asserts that there are three theories about how agnostids which were primitive arthropods lived in the past. The lecturer, however, finds these theories dubios and casts doubt on the reasons proposed by the reading passage.
First of all, the author of the reading argues that these arthopods ancestors probably were free-swimming predators which huanted tiny animals like other types of primitive arthropods. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that free-swimmer predators had large eyes which helped them hunt their prey, while agnostids had little eye. Therefore, these theory could not be true, otherwise they had some special organs which helped them to hunt. Since researchers did not find any sign for such organs, it cannot be true.
Furthermore, the reading passage holds the view that these animals might lived on the seafloor like other arthropods. On the contrary, the professor underlines the fact that seafloor animals could not move fast. Also, they prefer to localize in one area because their slow speed. As a consequence, their fossiles should be in a limited area, while they are spread in a large geographic area which show that they were very fast.
Finally, the writer mentioned that these animals possibly were as parasites which feed on the larger animals due to the fact that many of their modern-day arthropods exist as parasites. In contrast, the speaker dismisses this claim and states that if they were parasite, their population had to be in a limited amount, while researchers found that their population was quite large.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 351, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this theory' or 'these theories'?
Suggestion: this theory; these theories
...le agnostids had little eye. Therefore, these theory could not be true, otherwise they had s...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, so, therefore, while, in contrast, first of all, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1335.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 255.0 270.72406181 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.23529411765 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99608801488 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51814178757 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.576470588235 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 401.4 419.366225166 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.0862913066 49.2860985944 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.25 110.228320801 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.25 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.3333333333 7.06452816374 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.281670467425 0.272083759551 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0989603664177 0.0996497079465 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0727961795384 0.0662205650399 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168990408423 0.162205337803 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0264111832596 0.0443174109184 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.