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 lecturer refutes all three claims about the purpose and uses of Scottish carved stone balls in the reading passage. It is believed that these are used from the Late Neolithic period. However, the professor contradicts all the theories and he had a counter-argument for each assumption.
First of all, the claim that these stone balls were used as a hunting weapon is disproving by the lecturer by saying that the weapons to be used for hunting like the arrows or bow should have marks of wear. But the stones had no signs of destruction or cracks that clearly call the hunting theory into question.
Second, the reading posits that the carved stone balls were used as a measure to weigh grains and food for trade. On the other hand, the lecturer rebuts this by stating that, the stones are made of different types of rocks like sandstone, limestone, and court sites. As a result, every 2 stone balls have different masses and therefore they cannot be used as a measuring unit.
Last, the final theory in the passage suggests that the stone balls were used as a symbol of social status. The professor argues that there are 2 reasons that he doesn't believe in this theory. The first is, the carvings on the stone are sometimes complicated or otherwise simple. He elaborates this by the stones that are used as a social marker, the carving should be intricate. So simple carving in stone readily disproves the theory. Second, the Neolithic legends or social leaders were buried with their possessions. If the stones are a symbol of social status, they can be seen from the excavations of tombs or burial sites. These remains are not identified to date.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 163, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...argues that there are 2 reasons that he doesnt believe in this theory. The first is, t...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, second, so, therefore, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1377.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 288.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.78125 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.46250577724 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.510416666667 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 423.9 419.366225166 101% => 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: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.0155689373 49.2860985944 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.0625 110.228320801 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.75 7.06452816374 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 10.0 4.27373068433 234% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.249431443682 0.272083759551 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.087340730472 0.0996497079465 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0509635022015 0.0662205650399 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151792880393 0.162205337803 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0540724067093 0.0443174109184 122% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.1 13.3589403974 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.15 12.2367328918 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.