In 1938 an archaeologist in Iraq acquired a set of clay jars that had been excavated two years earlier by villagers constructing a railroad line. The vessel was about 2,200 years old. Each clay jay contained a copper cylinder surrounding an iron rod. The archaeologist proposed that vessel were ancient electric batteries and even demonstrated that they can produce a small electric current when filled with some liquids. However, it is not likely that the vessels were actually used as electric batteries in ancient times.
First of all, if the vessels were used as batteries, they would probably have been attached to some electricity conductors such as metal wires. But there is no evidence that any metal wires were located near the vessels. All that has been excavated are the vessels themselves.
Second, the copper cylinders inside the jarslook exactly like copper cylinders discovered in the ruins of Seleucia, an ancientcity located nearby. We know that the copper cylinders from Seleucia were used for holding scrolls of sacred texts, not for generating electricity. Since the cylinders found with the jars have the same shape, it is very likely they were used for holding scrolls as well. That no scrolls were found inside the jars can be explained by the fact that the scrolls simply disintegrated over the centuries.
Finally, what could ancient people have done with the electricity that the vessels were supposed to have generated? They had no devices that replied on electricity. As batteries, the vessels would have been completely useless to them.
Both the reading and the listening materials discuss a set a clay jars . The reading, to be more specific, argues that the claim that these jars could have been used as ancient electric batteries is unconvincing. On the contrary, the lecturer holds a different idea and states that the claim may as well be true.
The reading begins by stating that the electric conductors needed to function these " batteries" were not found anywhere near the vessels. This is challenged by the professor, who feels strong that the metal wires could have been overlooked. She further explains that the discovery was made entirely by villagers who might have missed the wires or thrown them away as unimportant.
The reading then points out that the similar copper cylinders were found in the ruins of Seleucia; however, they were used to hold scrolls. The professor, in contrast, asserts that it the jars could have been developed into batteries by some inventors. He supports his idea by discussing that cylinders might have been created to hold scrolls but were later adapted into electric batteries.
The reading finishes by arguing that the batteries were of no use due to the lack of devices. The lecturer refutes this idea, claiming ancient people could have used batteries for other purposes. Indeed, they could have used electricity to convince others that they possess some magical powers or used it for heal process.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 71, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ning materials discuss a set a clay jars . The reading, to be more specific, argue...
^^
Line 6, column 119, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[5]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'used to holding'.
Suggestion: used to holding
...e ruins of Seleucia; however, they were used to hold scrolls. The professor, in contrast, as...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'so', 'then', 'well', 'in contrast', 'on the contrary']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.217557251908 0.261695866417 83% => OK
Verbs: 0.213740458015 0.158904122519 135% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0648854961832 0.0723426182421 90% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0419847328244 0.0435111971325 96% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0343511450382 0.0277247811725 124% => OK
Prepositions: 0.114503816794 0.128828473217 89% => OK
Participles: 0.0839694656489 0.0370669169778 227% => Less participles wanted.
Conjunctions: 2.56275726352 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0229007633588 0.0208969081088 110% => OK
Particles: 0.00381679389313 0.00154638098197 247% => OK
Determiners: 0.129770992366 0.128158765124 101% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.030534351145 0.0158828679856 192% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00763358778626 0.0114777025283 67% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1428.0 1645.83664459 87% => OK
No of words: 236.0 271.125827815 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.05084745763 6.08160592843 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91947592106 4.04852973271 97% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.338983050847 0.374372842146 91% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.283898305085 0.287516216867 99% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.203389830508 0.187439937562 109% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.122881355932 0.113142543107 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56275726352 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 133.0 145.348785872 92% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.563559322034 0.539623497131 104% => OK
Word variations: 54.7429035717 53.8517498576 102% => OK
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0529801325 92% => OK
Sentence length: 19.6666666667 21.7502111507 90% => OK
Sentence length SD: 22.8795153406 49.3711431718 46% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.0 132.220823453 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6666666667 21.7502111507 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.833333333333 0.878197800319 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.39072847682 59% => OK
Readability: 48.0564971751 50.5018328374 95% => OK
Elegance: 1.43421052632 1.90840788429 75% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.233781862023 0.549887131256 43% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.14056738358 0.142949733639 98% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0547139299761 0.0787303798458 69% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.627953609871 0.631733273073 99% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.0648689927392 0.139662658121 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.119489442051 0.266732575781 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0563905303252 0.103435571967 55% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.42020627973 0.414875509568 101% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.012510823566 0.0530846634433 24% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168540961414 0.40443939384 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0343854863398 0.0528353158467 65% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.26048565121 94% => OK
Positive topic words: 3.0 3.49668874172 86% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 3.62251655629 83% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 3.1766004415 126% => OK
Total topic words: 10.0 10.2958057395 97% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.