integraded tpo 33
The article states that archeologists do not agree about the meaning and the purpose of the carved stones balls and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor explains that the three theories provided in the reading are not convincing and he refutes each of the author’s reasons.
First, the reading states that the carving stone balls might be used in hunting and fighting. The article provides the fact that the stones had hole which a cord might strung through it and used as a kind of weapon. The professor refutes this point by stating that the weapon used at the time were arrow and hand access, the professor also mentions that all weapon had wear on them, however the carved stone balls were well preserved, which mean that they are not used as weapon
Second, the article claims that the carved stones balls were used as a method of primitive weight and measurement. The article provides that fact that all the balls are uniform in sizes, which support the idea of using them in measurement and weight. However, the professor content that the craving balls having different mass. The professor supports his claim by saying that each ball is made of different kind of stone which lead to different densities. The idea of using the ball as a primitive method to weight is unacceptable.
Third, the reading avers that the craving stones were representing asocial purpose, because the stones had elaborate design. The lecture opposes this point by saying that the stones never represent social purpose. The fact that some stones had very simple design and also any of the stones found to be buried with people in their craving, that mean that the stones were not really had a highly rating purpose.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The article states that archeologists do...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...h of the author's reasons. First, the reading states that the carvi...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 175, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t the stones had hole which a cord might strung through it and used as a kind of...
^^
Line 5, column 194, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...le which a cord might strung through it and used as a kind of weapon. The profes...
^^
Line 5, column 303, Rule ID: WERE_VBB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'where' or 'we'?
Suggestion: where; we
...tating that the weapon used at the time were arrow and hand access, the professor al...
^^^^
Line 5, column 308, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'arrowed'.
Suggestion: arrowed
...g that the weapon used at the time were arrow and hand access, the professor also men...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 488, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ch mean that they are not used as weapon Second, the article claims that th...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ethod to weight is unacceptable. Third, the reading avers that the cravin...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 74, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hat the craving stones were representing asocial purpose, because the stones had ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, really, second, so, third, well, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 12.0772626932 174% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => 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: 1453.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 294.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94217687075 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14082457966 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.32898833863 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 134.0 145.348785872 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.455782312925 0.540411800872 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 429.3 419.366225166 102% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.23620309051 170% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 81.6082699377 49.2860985944 166% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.083333333 110.228320801 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.5 21.698381199 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 7.06452816374 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 4.19205298013 215% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.444327950516 0.272083759551 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.17607502227 0.0996497079465 177% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0774622843855 0.0662205650399 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.259669834791 0.162205337803 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0628914733015 0.0443174109184 142% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.67 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.83 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.