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 vessels were about 2 200 years old Each clay jar contained a copper cylinder surrounding an iron rod The a

Essay topics:

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 vessels were about 2,200 years old. Each clay jar contained a copper cylinder surrounding an iron rod. The archaeologist proposed that the vessels 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 jars look exactly like copper cylinders discovered in the ruins of Seleucia, an ancient city 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 and lecture are about the findings of vessels in the archaeological sites, and regarding its' uses for the production of electricity. In the reading passage, the author feels that these are not used as a battery, and provides three reasons for support. The lecturer challenged on it explaining that the use of vessels as a battery and proves each of the authors' reasons unconvincing.
To begin with, the reading says that "If the vessels were used as a battery, then it should have to attach with some conductor like wire", and this metal wire does not found during excavation. However, the speaker argues that ancient local people were not trained archaeologist, thus why, they were not able to find the metal wire which is attached to it. Additionally, he mentions that during the time of discovery, they might throw it by not aware of it.
Secondly, the writer claims that the copper cylinder inside the jar was observed to be used for holding of scrolls in Seleucia. The lecturer contracts on it by saying that this cylinder used for holding was no proved. Also, he elaborated it that although it was used for holding scrolls initially, it was later used for the other purpose.
Finally, the reading posits that there was no use of electricity at that period. Further, it explains that there are no uses of a device requiring electricity, and moreover, the battery was useless too. On the contrary, the professor opposes it by discussing that the use of the battery in that period is for a mild shock or tinging for the patients, which has invisible power. According to him, a battery in that period is used for the healing purpose like todays' medication for relieving aches and pain.

Average: 0.3 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:


Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 458, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'todays'' or 'today's'?
Suggestion: todays'; today's
...od is used for the healing purpose like todays medication for relieving aches and pain...

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, however, if, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, thus, on the contrary, to begin with

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 22.412803532 152% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1419.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 294.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.82653061224 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14082457966 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65470252737 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 145.348785872 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.513605442177 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 450.0 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.5372794839 49.2860985944 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.153846154 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6153846154 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.69230769231 7.06452816374 123% => 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 : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0505918018637 0.272083759551 19% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0222749568392 0.0996497079465 22% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0279353873288 0.0662205650399 42% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0333309017117 0.162205337803 21% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0192464871108 0.0443174109184 43% => 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: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.03 12.2367328918 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.81 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?

It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.

Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.