The reading passage contends that there are serious problems and limitations in Britain regarding the science of archaeology, the study that uncover and study old cultural artifacts. On the other hand, the lecturer brings about several points that contradict this argument.
First of all, the lecturer questions the idea in the reading passage that a great deal of valuable artifacts was destroyed by construction projects. This is attributed to the fact that before construction, archaeologists excavate locations which where the buildings will be constructed. They should enough study and evaluable to whether it is possible to construct buildings or not. Thus, the reading passage’s first point is invalid.
Moreover, the lecturer casts doubt on the idea made by the reading passage that most archaeologists would not enough research because of lack of the financial support for archaeological research. This is because most funds and grants have been from construction companies, not government. It is the new financial support policies and helps many archaeologists to research without concern about the funds. Consequently, the reading passage’s second point is contradicted.
Last but not least, the lecturer disagrees with the idea made in the reading passage that becoming archaeology is difficult to have a career. It is obvious that there are much job opportunities to become archaeologist and eventually, this job became most famous and highest job in Britain. Thus, with the reasoning, the reading passage’s last point is refuted.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... points that contradict this argument. First of all, the lecturer questions the...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...passage's first point is invalid. Moreover, the lecturer casts doubt on th...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e's second point is contradicted. Last but not least, the lecturer disagre...
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'consequently', 'first', 'if', 'moreover', 'regarding', 'second', 'so', 'thus', 'first of all', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.28102189781 0.261695866417 107% => OK
Verbs: 0.13503649635 0.158904122519 85% => OK
Adjectives: 0.105839416058 0.0723426182421 146% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0401459854015 0.0435111971325 92% => OK
Pronouns: 0.014598540146 0.0277247811725 53% => OK
Prepositions: 0.113138686131 0.128828473217 88% => OK
Participles: 0.036496350365 0.0370669169778 98% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.1530818672 2.5805825403 122% => OK
Infinitives: 0.021897810219 0.0208969081088 105% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.00154638098197 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.105839416058 0.128158765124 83% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0109489051095 0.0158828679856 69% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0109489051095 0.0114777025283 95% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1575.0 1645.83664459 96% => OK
No of words: 237.0 271.125827815 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.64556962025 6.08160592843 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.92362132708 4.04852973271 97% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.413502109705 0.374372842146 110% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.35864978903 0.287516216867 125% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.248945147679 0.187439937562 133% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.177215189873 0.113142543107 157% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1530818672 2.5805825403 122% => OK
Unique words: 130.0 145.348785872 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.548523206751 0.539623497131 102% => OK
Word variations: 52.4757369035 53.8517498576 97% => OK
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0529801325 100% => OK
Sentence length: 18.2307692308 21.7502111507 84% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.5781861332 49.3711431718 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.153846154 132.220823453 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2307692308 21.7502111507 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.846153846154 0.878197800319 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.39072847682 88% => OK
Readability: 54.0957481337 50.5018328374 107% => OK
Elegance: 2.26923076923 1.90840788429 119% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.568068438656 0.549887131256 103% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0993256617956 0.142949733639 69% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0415555164795 0.0787303798458 53% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.569560458524 0.631733273073 90% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.136056968244 0.139662658121 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.252132954603 0.266732575781 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.119144431857 0.103435571967 115% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.421085078498 0.414875509568 101% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0368364147783 0.0530846634433 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.423099983807 0.40443939384 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0549576592581 0.0528353158467 104% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.26048565121 94% => OK
Positive topic words: 2.0 3.49668874172 57% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 3.62251655629 138% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 3.1766004415 63% => OK
Total topic words: 9.0 10.2958057395 87% => 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.