Carved stone balls are a curious type of artifact found at a number of locations in Scotland. They date from the late Neolithic period, around 4,000 years ago. They are round in shape; they were carved from several types of stone; most are about 70 mm in diameter; and many are ornamented to some degree. Archaeologists do not agree about their purpose and meaning, but there are several theories. One theory is that the carved stone balls were weapons used in hunting or fighting. Some of the stone balls have been found with holes in them, and many have grooves on the surface. It is possible that a cord was strung through the holes or laid in the grooves around the ball. Holding the stone balls at the end of the cord would have allowed a person to swing it around or throw it. A second theory is that the carved stone balls were used as part of a primitive system of weights and measures. The fact that they are so nearly uniform in size – at 70 mm in diameter – suggests that the balls were interchangeable and represented some standard unit of measure. They could have been used as standard weights to measure quantities of grain or other food, or anything that needed to be measured by weight on a balance or scale for the purpose of trade. A third theory is that the carved stone balls served a social purpose as opposed to a practical or utilitarian one. This view is supported by the fact that many stone balls have elaborate designs. The elaborate carving suggests that the stones may have marked the important social status of their owners
The author states that the curved stone which were found in Scotland had used in especial purpose. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter-argues that viewpoint trying to prove these applications is not correct for these stone balls.
First and foremost, the writer says that these stone balls were employed as weapons for hunting or wars. In contrast, the professor cannot disagree more, reasoning that these carved stones did not use as a weapon. In this case, she points out that these stones are well-preserved and do not have any crack on them. Consequently, these balls did not utilize as weapons.
The second argument the text gives is that these balls were used as weighting and measuring system. Nevertheless, the lecturer cannot be more outraged, explaining that although these carved stones are remarkably uniform, they have different mass. In fact, these balls made from different materials like sand an grave. Thus, the stones with varied weight with same size could not be used as measuring system.
Lastly, on one hand the writer defends that these stone balls were used as a social goal. Nevertheless, the professor contends that when a special person died, others buried his/her symbol with that one. However, scientists did not find any stone ball in graves which they could show personal position of that dead man in the community. Hence, these stone balls did not have social option.
In conclusion, as the author is fundamentally for the idea that stone balls were applied to three purposes. Nonetheless, the lecturer is deeply against that idea.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 309, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...made from different materials like sand an grave. Thus, the stones with varied wei...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, hence, however, if, lastly, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, so, thus, well, in conclusion, in contrast, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1324.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 258.0 270.72406181 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13178294574 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00778971557 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52967485114 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 145.348785872 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.558139534884 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 394.2 419.366225166 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 27.6145342166 49.2860985944 56% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 82.75 110.228320801 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.125 21.698381199 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.4375 7.06452816374 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.187227443466 0.272083759551 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0682440217333 0.0996497079465 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0409783073426 0.0662205650399 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.109007984199 0.162205337803 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.022816195918 0.0443174109184 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 13.3589403974 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => 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.