Actually many archaeologists believe that the coin discussed in the reading is not a fake. They believe it represents genuine evidence that the Norse came into contact with Native Americans a thousand years ago.
First, the great distance of the Maine site from the Norse settlements in Canada. Well, many other objects found at that same Native American site had come from faraway places. Not just the coin. There's a perfectly reasonable historical explanation for these objects. The Native Americans who lived at the Maine site traveled great distances within North America. They were interested in obtaining objects from faraway places. The Native Americans could have reached the Norse settlements during their travels and brought the silver coin back to Maine.
Second, does the fact that we found no other coins at Norse settlements mean that the Norse didn't bring any coins with them? Not necessarily. The Norse didn't create permanent settlements in North America. At some point, they went back to Europe. When they packed for their return voyage, they packed up all their valuable possessions. They would have packed up all silver coins they had as well. So it's completely possible that the Norse had origina lly brought the coins with them to North America, but when they returned to Europe, they took the coins back with them.
Third, it's true that Native Americans wouldn't have viewed coins as money in the same way we do today or the way the Norse did in Europ e. But the Norse probably knew that the Native Americans valued attractive or unusual objects. Silver coins might have been very appealing because of their beauty. For example, they could have been used in necklaces or other types of jewelry. As long as Native Americans found the coins interesting and beautiful, the Norse could have used the coins to trade with them.
The article states that a European silver coin that had been found in the state of Maine in not genuine and provides three reasons to support it. However, the professor explains that there are some evidence that indicate the coin is genuine and refutes the author's points.
First, that there was long distance from Maine to the Norse people, a group of European who traveled across tha North America and might have the coin, as the reading claims, is rejected in the lecture. The professor says the Native Americans could travel within the North America and bring other objects far away form their sites. Therefore it is more likely that the coin might be one of those objects that brought back to Main by the Native Americans.
Second, based on the reading, scholors could not find any coins the in where the Norse were inhabited. In contrast, the professr mentions that the Norse people were not permanent resident in North America. When the Norse people were coming back to the Europe, they brough back their properties, even their coins, with them.
third, the author posits that the coin was useless for the Norse people in North America. The professor casts doubt on this point by saying that the Native americans valued objects that were attractive, valuable and appealing. They took them as a jewerly and the coin was on of these valuable objects for them. Finally, the Norse people could trade with these people with the coin
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 332, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...ther objects far away form their sites. Therefore it is more likely that the coin might b...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 68, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...g, scholors could not find any coins the in where the Norse were inhabited. In co...
^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Third
...erties, even their coins, with them. third, the author posits that the coin was us...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, second, so, therefore, third, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => 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: 1197.0 1373.03311258 87% => OK
No of words: 247.0 270.72406181 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.84615384615 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96437052324 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.11594921083 2.5805825403 82% => OK
Unique words: 132.0 145.348785872 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.534412955466 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 361.8 419.366225166 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.0011573871 49.2860985944 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.75 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5833333333 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 7.06452816374 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.184382346953 0.272083759551 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0697136073556 0.0996497079465 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.027188788506 0.0662205650399 41% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.110281378409 0.162205337803 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0210128661523 0.0443174109184 47% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.85 12.2367328918 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.7 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 48.0 63.6247240618 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.