In 1938 an archaeologist in Iraq acquired a set of clay jars that had been excavated two years earlier by villagers constructing a railroad line. The vessel was about 2,200 years old. Each clay jar contained a copper cylinder surrounding an iron rod. The archaeologist proposed that vessel were ancient electric batteries and even demonstrated that they can produce a small electric current when filled with some liquids. However, it is not likely that the vessels were actually used as electric batteries in ancient times.
First of all, if the vessels were used as batteries, they would probably have been attached to some electricity conductors such as metal wires. But there is no evidence that any metal wires were located near the vessels. All that has been excavated are the vessels themselves.
Second, the copper cylinders inside the jarslook exactly like copper cylinders discovered in the ruins of Seleucia, an ancientcity located nearby. We know that the copper cylinders from Seleucia were used for holding scrolls of sacred texts, not for generating electricity. Since the cylinders found with the jars have the same shape, it is very likely they were used for holding scrolls as well. That no scrolls were found inside the jars can be explained by the fact that the scrolls simply disintegrated over the centuries.
Finally, what could ancient people have done with the electricity that the vessels were supposed to have generated? They had no devices that relied on electricity. As batteries, the vessels would have been completely useless to them.
The reading passage and lecture have conflicting opinions about whether or not the clay jars found in Iraq were used as electric batteries. The article strongly postulates that its most likey those jars weren't used to generate electricity for several assumptions. On the other hand, the listening adamantly delinates that none of the arguments presented in the text are convincing.
First and foremost, according to the author of the excerpt, the excavation would have resulted in conductors or metal wires connected to the vessels, if they were used as electric batteries. Nonetheless, the lecture offsets these points by insisting that the vessels were found by locals not trained people. In other words, the vessels weren't found by an archaeologist, so the individuals who found the vessels may didn't notice the wires.
On top of this, the professor in lecture further points out that the copper found in vessels are similar to that copper used for holding scrolls in Seleucia. However, this thing doesn't prove anything. the ancient may be discovered that using these vessels and liquid would produce electricity. These claims refute the writer implications of how the copper cylinders in vessels were used for hanging scrolls of rare texts.
The article lastly asserts that people in the past didn't have any device that works on electricity. wich means the vessels may have been useless for them. The speaker in lecture counters these points by insisting that the electric batteries would have been used to create a mild shock. also, people in the past claimed they had visible powers. Moreover, the vessels would have used for healing, for instance, to stretch mussels.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 65, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...lecture have conflicting opinions about whether or not the clay jars found in Iraq were used a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 204, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: weren't
...stulates that its most likey those jars werent used to generate electricity for severa...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 337, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: weren't
...ned people. In other words, the vessels werent found by an archaeologist, so the indiv...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 416, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...e individuals who found the vessels may didnt notice the wires. On top of this, th...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 179, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...crolls in Seleucia. However, this thing doesnt prove anything. the ancient may be disc...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 202, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...ever, this thing doesnt prove anything. the ancient may be discovered that using th...
^^^
Line 7, column 52, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... lastly asserts that people in the past didnt have any device that works on electrici...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 101, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Wich
...e any device that works on electricity. wich means the vessels may have been useless...
^^^^
Line 7, column 287, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Also
... have been used to create a mild shock. also, people in the past claimed they had vi...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, lastly, may, moreover, nonetheless, so, for instance, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 15.1003584229 60% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 9.8082437276 71% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 13.8261648746 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 43.0788530466 46% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 52.1666666667 61% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 8.0752688172 25% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1412.0 1977.66487455 71% => OK
No of words: 272.0 407.700716846 67% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19117647059 4.8611393121 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06108636974 4.48103885553 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55247691631 2.67179642975 96% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 212.727598566 69% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.536764705882 0.524837075471 102% => OK
syllable_count: 428.4 618.680645161 69% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 9.59856630824 21% => OK
Article: 11.0 3.08781362007 356% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.6003584229 73% => 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: 18.0 20.1344086022 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.712386763 48.9658058833 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.1333333333 100.406767564 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1333333333 20.6045352989 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.53333333333 5.45110844103 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 5.5376344086 163% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 11.8709677419 25% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.88709677419 184% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.11481544402 0.236089414692 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0391598721017 0.076458572812 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0363210934063 0.0737576698707 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0726294185685 0.150856017488 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0201177612452 0.0645574589148 31% => 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: 12.1 11.7677419355 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 58.1214874552 92% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.1575268817 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 10.9000537634 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.01818996416 107% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 86.8835125448 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.002688172 110% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.0537634409 92% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.247311828 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
We are expecting: No. of Words: 350 while No. of Different Words: 200
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.