tpo43
In the reading passage, the author proposes several possible theories of how agnostids have lived, which are case serious doubt on by the listening passage arguing that all of three statements have serious weakness.
Fristly, as the author claims, agnostids could be free-swimming predators since other kinds of primitive arthropods were swimmers. On the contrast, the speaker points out that agnotids can never be an active predtors since all active predators have big eyes and their vision is significant for them to chase after preyers. The agnostids have tiny and poorly developed eye, even some are blind, which means it is difficult for chasing small organisms. Besides, there are also no better sensing organ record of them. Accordingly, it is impossible for agonotids to be a free-swim predators, which proves that the first viewpoint of writer is incorrect.
Secondly, the writer believes that agnostids may have been seafloor dwellers because some other primitive arthropods lived in this way. On the contrary, the lecturer argues that for dwellers they can't move fast along seafloor while agnotids seem move rapidly. Most dwellers they move slowly and stay in some small places where they were born. However paleontologists found there are multiple areas the fossils of agonotids were discovered and which means that they have the ability to spread their species in distance. Thus, the agnotids move fast and this is unusual for dwellers which clashes with the second view of the author.
Finally, the reading passage insists that it is probably that agnotids were parasites and lived on primitive fish or other arthropods. However, the professor contends with the author again by arguing that agnotids cannot be parasites because of their population. For parasites, their population has limitation since over population will kill their host animals. But vast fossil of agnotids were discovered which verifies that it is unreasonable that the agnotids have been parasites.
- tpo43 3
- tpo44 76
- Many companies sell product or services but at the same time cause environmental damage. Some said it can be stop by ask them to pay penalty such as a higher tax when they cause the environment damage. Other said there are better ways to stop them for har 73
- It is better to travel abroad to visit different countries when you are younger rather than when you are older 70
- TPO40 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 197, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
... lecturer argues that for dwellers they cant move fast along seafloor while agnotids...
^^^^
Line 5, column 344, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...some small places where they were born. However paleontologists found there are multipl...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, besides, but, finally, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, thus, well, while, even so, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 15.1003584229 146% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 9.8082437276 51% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 13.8261648746 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.0286738351 163% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 43.0788530466 65% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 52.1666666667 59% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 5.0 8.0752688172 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1680.0 1977.66487455 85% => OK
No of words: 313.0 407.700716846 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.36741214058 4.8611393121 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.48103885553 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59337163898 2.67179642975 97% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 212.727598566 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.549520766773 0.524837075471 105% => OK
syllable_count: 514.8 618.680645161 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 9.59856630824 21% => OK
Article: 8.0 3.08781362007 259% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.6003584229 73% => 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: 20.0 20.1344086022 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.7155435096 48.9658058833 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.0 100.406767564 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8666666667 20.6045352989 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.8 5.45110844103 161% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 11.8709677419 17% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 3.85842293907 233% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.236089414692 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.076458572812 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0737576698707 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.150856017488 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0645574589148 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 11.7677419355 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 58.1214874552 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.1575268817 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 10.9000537634 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.51 8.01818996416 106% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 86.8835125448 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.002688172 130% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.0537634409 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
We are expecting: No. of Words: 350 while No. of Different Words: 200
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.