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 reading and the lecture are both about public and scientific relations in regard with fossils trade on the hidden market. According to the reading passage, public suffers when unearthed fossils redistributed directly to private collections instead of museums. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article. By using the following evidence, she posits out that neither trade among private collectors nor limited access to fossils from scientists eventually harms public.
First of all, the professor contends that positive consequence associated with trade among private collectors outweighs negative as more fossils are found and become available for general public. Mercenary interest to raise money from rich private persons is positively correlated with the number of fossils found and then redistributed between collectors and museums. This statement counters the author’s point according to which the rise in shadow market negatively affects the interest from public to museums. Likewise, the author of the reading implies that remains are not donated to public places anymore.
Furthermore, according to the lecture, before entering the shadow market any fossil has to be identified by an expert. Thus, petrified remains eventually pass through specialists. This point differs from one in the article, according to which rich private collectors conjugated with large sums of funds deliberately process no access to unearthed findings.
Additionally, the lecturer puts forth the idea that the decline in amount of discoveries would have lead to the overall decrease in number of fossils found. She states that the absence of interest from private companies would have lead to the general decrease in number of fossils available to general public. In other words, the amount of findings is directly conjugated with the lack of interest from private businesses, and many fossils could have gone undiscovered.
All in all, the evidence referred to by the lecturer challenges the idea that public suffers from shadow market.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-04-30 | Yam Kumar Oli | 3 | view |
| 2022-12-26 | YAGUT | 81 | view |
| 2022-11-11 | stupidfella | 73 | view |
| 2022-10-16 | Prabesh Dhakal | 68 | view |
| 2022-10-16 | _sta | 73 | view |
- Learning about the past has no value for those living in the present 81
- 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 73
- In the 1950s Torreya Taxifolia 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 will soon become extinct Experts are co 3
- People learn things better from those at their own level such as fellows or co workers than from those at higher level such as teachers or supervisors 76
- In twenty years there will be fewer cars in use than there are today 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 181, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...sils are found and become available for general public. Mercenary interest to raise money from...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 100, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...line in amount of discoveries would have lead to the overall decrease in number o...
^^
Line 4, column 295, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...rease in number of fossils available to general public. In other words, the amount of findings...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, if, likewise, so, then, thus, as to, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 22.412803532 45% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 30.3222958057 195% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1736.0 1373.03311258 126% => OK
No of words: 313.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.54632587859 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70847387323 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.507987220447 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 540.9 419.366225166 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.7468134891 49.2860985944 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.733333333 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8666666667 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 7.06452816374 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.466847334827 0.272083759551 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.168387118119 0.0996497079465 169% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.180954722545 0.0662205650399 273% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.258014553007 0.162205337803 159% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.203489513218 0.0443174109184 459% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.3589403974 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 53.8541721854 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.91 12.2367328918 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 63.6247240618 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 68.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.5 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.