The reading states that it is not likely that the vessels were actually used as electric batteries and provides three reasons of supports. The professor, on the other hand, explains that thier evidinces are not convencing and refutes each of author's reasons.
First, the article claims that there is not any wire which was used to attached to some electricity conductors. However the professor refutes this point by saying that maybe there was wire. She mentions that because people who discover the things in there were not archeologist, they might found wire but they recognized them unimportant and over look them.
Moreover, the reading states that the copper cylinders inside the jars look like copper cylinders discovered in the ruins of Seleucia, which were used for holding scrolls of sacred texts not for generating electricity. The lecturer, however, says that the similarity between them does not prove anything. He says that it may be produced for one purpose but adapted for another goal too.
Finally, the reading explains that as battries the vessels would have been completely useless for them. The professor contend this point by saying that it may be used as power shock when it touches any thing. Besides, she mentions that it may be invisible power such as magical power.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 112, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ttached to some electricity conductors. However the professor refutes this point by say...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 118, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'contends'.
Suggestion: contends
...pletely useless for them. The professor contend this point by saying that it may be use...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 198, Rule ID: ANY_BODY[2]
Message: Did you mean 'anything'?
Suggestion: anything
... be used as power shock when it touches any thing. Besides, she mentions that it may be i...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, besides, but, finally, first, however, look, may, moreover, so, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 15.0 30.3222958057 49% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 0.0 5.01324503311 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1082.0 1373.03311258 79% => OK
No of words: 213.0 270.72406181 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.07981220657 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.82027741392 4.04702891845 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44990363409 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 126.0 145.348785872 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.591549295775 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 329.4 419.366225166 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.8043455371 49.2860985944 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.3636363636 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3636363636 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.09090909091 7.06452816374 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.353092390408 0.272083759551 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11501349762 0.0996497079465 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.111105446135 0.0662205650399 168% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.189625645359 0.162205337803 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0453827878358 0.0443174109184 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 48.0 63.6247240618 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.