tpo 13
The material discusses the declining in the science of archeology in Briatain. While the reading looks at the topic from one perspective, the listening challenges certain points outlined in the reading passage.
Firstly, the reading details specific points regarding this topic, namely new construction destroyed many archaelogically valuable sites. Next, governement funds for archaeology was not supportive. Finally, it was very difficult for archaeologists to find enough opportunities.
Conversely, the lecture challenges the points, one specific contradiction, there were new rules adapted in Britain that improved the sitiuation; first, the site should be examied by archaelogists, and if it had any archaelogical interest or values, the builders archaeology could work with local government to preserve these achaeologists by building around them and excavating before building any new constructions. In addition to that, constructive companies should pay for the whole project not the government, to put it in another way, they should pay for the inatial examination and all work that carried out under presevation, which created new sorts of financial support. One final point, these new rules created more archaeologly jobs that did not exisit before.For example , they should do examination preservation plans , researchs and process data. As a result, number of archaeology jobs became at its highest level in Britian.
In summary there is a discrepancies in the presented information.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 255, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'builders'' or 'builder's'?
Suggestion: builders'; builder's
...y archaelogical interest or values, the builders archaeology could work with local gover...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 772, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: For
...eologly jobs that did not exisit before.For example , they should do examination pr...
^^^
Line 5, column 783, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...s that did not exisit before.For example , they should do examination preservation...
^^
Line 5, column 831, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...should do examination preservation plans , researchs and process data. As a result...
^^
Line 7, column 12, Rule ID: THERE_S_MANY[4]
Message: Did you mean 'there are a discrepancies'?
Suggestion: there are a discrepancies
... highest level in Britian. In summary there is a discrepancies in the presented information.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 21, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a discrepancy' or simply 'discrepancies'?
Suggestion: a discrepancy; discrepancies
...level in Britian. In summary there is a discrepancies in the presented information.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, finally, first, firstly, if, look, regarding, so, while, for example, in addition, in summary, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => 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: 1281.0 1373.03311258 93% => OK
No of words: 221.0 270.72406181 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.7963800905 5.08290768461 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.85565412703 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.29047161402 2.5805825403 128% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.678733031674 0.540411800872 126% => OK
syllable_count: 386.1 419.366225166 92% => 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: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 107.357580077 49.2860985944 218% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 128.1 110.228320801 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1 21.698381199 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.8 7.06452816374 167% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0777525939489 0.272083759551 29% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0277404215639 0.0996497079465 28% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0259608975205 0.0662205650399 39% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0331519853965 0.162205337803 20% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0318707752083 0.0443174109184 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.9 13.3589403974 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 53.8541721854 76% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.36 12.2367328918 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.16 8.42419426049 121% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.