Private collectors have been selling and buying fossils, the petrified remains of ancient organisms, ever since the eighteenth century. In recent years, however, the sale of fossils, particularly of dinosaurs and other large vertebrates, has grown into a big business. Rare and important fossils are now being sold to private ownership for millions of dollars. This is an unfortunate development for both scientists and the general public.
The public suffers because fossils that would otherwise be donated to museums where everyone can see them are sold to private collectors who do not allow the public to view their collections. Making it harder for the public to see fossils can lead to a decline in public interest in fossils, which would be a pity.
More importantly, scientists are likely to lose access to some of the most important fossils and thereby miss out on potentially crucial discoveries about extinct life forms. Wealthy fossil buyers with a desire to own the rarest and most important fossils can spend virtually limitless amounts of money to acquire them. Scientists and the museums and universities they work for often cannot compete successfully for fossils against millionaire fossil buyers.
Moreover, commercial fossil collectors often destroy valuable scientific evidence associated with the fossils they unearth. Most commercial fossil collectors are untrained or uninterested in carrying out the careful field work and documentation that reveal the most about animal life in the past. For example, scientists have learned about the biology of nest-building dinosaurs called oviraptors by carefully observing the exact position of oviraptor fossils in the ground and the presence of other fossils in the immediate surroundings. Commercial fossil collectors typically pay no attention to how fossils lie in the ground or to the smaller fossils that may surround bigger ones.
The reading and lecturer are both about the selling and buying of fossils. The author of the reading is of the opinion that selling fossils to private ownership results in unfortunate development for both scientists and the general public; nonetheless, the lecturer refutes the claim of the author. He believes that private ownership benefits the general public as well as scientists. The lecturer cast doubt on the main point made in the reading by providing three reasons.
First of all, the author argues that the public suffers because fossils would otherwise be donated to museums where everyone can see them and private collectors who do not allow the public to view their collections; nevertheless, this argument is challenged by the lecturer; he is of the opinion that most fossils are purchased by the low public institution so that general public can get more exposure about fossils.
Besides, the reading states that scientists are likely to lose to some of the most important fossils and thereby miss out on potentially crucial discoveries about extinct life forms; howbeit, the lecturer rebuts this by mentioning that the statement of author is not realistic as fossils are firstly handed over to scientists for discovery, and after that sold to private collectors.
Finally, the author posits that commercial fossils collectors often destroy valuable scientific evidence associated with the fossils they unearth as they are untrained; however, the lecturer believes that collectors damaged those fossils whose discoveries are not found; moreover, they pay more attention to fossils. Therefore, the contention of the author is not viable.
- “The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition.”Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or di 16
- A recent study reveals that people especially young people are reading far less literature—novels, plays, and poems—than they used to. This is troubling because the trend has unfortunate effects for the reading public, for culture in general, and for 80
- Technology has made children less creative than they were in the past. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 60
- Altruism 3
- TPO-18 - Integrated Writing Task In the 1950s Torreya taxifoha, a type of evergreen tree once very common in the state of Florida, started to die out. No one is sure exactly what caused the decline, but chances are good that if nothing is done, Torreya wi 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 225, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...development for both scientists and the general public; nonetheless, the lecturer refutes the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 348, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...ves that private ownership benefits the general public as well as scientists. The lecturer cas...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 367, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...d by the low public institution so that general public can get more exposure about fossils. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, nonetheless, so, therefore, well, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1410.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 260.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42307692308 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01553427287 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7291409013 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 145.348785872 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.519230769231 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 427.5 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 13.0662251656 61% => 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: 32.0 21.2450331126 151% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 140.129794744 49.2860985944 284% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 176.25 110.228320801 160% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.5 21.698381199 150% => OK
Discourse Markers: 16.75 7.06452816374 237% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0897733593544 0.272083759551 33% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0476779898394 0.0996497079465 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0516044320916 0.0662205650399 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.054848219797 0.162205337803 34% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0265035998817 0.0443174109184 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.3 13.3589403974 152% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.0 53.8541721854 72% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 11.0289183223 143% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.75 12.2367328918 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.05 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.8 10.498013245 141% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.