Problems with writer's explanations for mass extinction at the end of the Triassic period.
Recently, there has been a ton of debates as to mass extinction. Most specifically, with regard to the passage, the writer puts forth the idea that there are several possible explanations for mass extinction at the end of the Triassic period. In the listening, the lecturer is quick to point out there are serious flaws in the writer's claim. In fact, the professor believes non of the reasons are a good explanation about mass extinction and addresses, in detail, the trouble with each point made in the reading test.
First and foremost, the author in the article states decline of sea levels falls the habitats for the ocean population and causes extinction. Some professionals, in the same field, however, stand in opposition to this claim. In the listening, for example, the lecturer believes the decline of sea-level falls happened gradually and animals must adapt to this cause. He goes on to say that also this declination happened several million years ago before the mass extinction.
One group of scholars represented by the writer think that volcanic activity released large amounts of so2 to cause a lowering in global temperatures and extinction. Of course, though, not all the experts in this field believe this claim is accurate. Again, in the listening, the speaker addresses this point when he states this event happened in a short period and in that time there was not a lot of so2 in the atmosphere.
Finally, the writer wraps his argument by positing that asteroid strike. In the lecture, the speaker takes issue by contending that there is no evidence of a huge crater on Earth.
To sum up, both the writer and speaker hold conflicting views about mass extinction at the end of the Triassic period.
- our kids less creative and lazier than before 66
- the number of birds in the United States will necessarily decline because of an increase in agriculture and pesticide use However the professor in the lecture casts doubt on the points made in the reading 78
- huge houses of Chaco s people 80
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Providing Internet access is just as important as other services such as building roads so governments should offer Internet access to all of their citizens at no cost 70
- reject the advantage of storing information about patients in electronic databases by speaker 70
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, so, as to, for example, in fact, of course, to sum up, with regard to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 30.3222958057 162% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 5.01324503311 259% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1441.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 291.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95189003436 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13022058845 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68949031087 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.539518900344 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 439.2 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 2.5761589404 388% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.6813249251 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.928571429 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7857142857 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.42857142857 7.06452816374 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.331200385897 0.272083759551 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10461500186 0.0996497079465 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.155049641441 0.0662205650399 234% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192170081061 0.162205337803 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.181909430823 0.0443174109184 410% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.43 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.16 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.