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 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 both about whether the clay jars that are excavated in Iraq were used as batteries. The author of the reading feels that, these vessels were not used as electric batteries. However, the lecturer challenges all the claims made by the author. He is of the opinion that they were used as batteries.
To begin with, the reading states that if the vessels used as batteries, they should probably be attached to metal wires to conduct electricity. But there was no evidence of these wires on the site. Paradoxically, the professor in the lecture argues these clay pots were discovered by local villagers, not by an archeologist. Therefore, there are more chances of discarding of the non-valuable items when they had been excavated.
Secondly, the writer suggests the copper cylinders looked similar to the cylinders of Seleucia, which holds scrolls of sacred texts. The author thoughts that because of this similarity, the clay pots were used as pots to hold scrolls not as electric batteries. The professor refutes this by saying that, it's possible to produce electricity from clay pot with a copper cylinder, iron rod, and a suitable liquid medium. Additionally, he mentions the pots were originally used for making electricity, they were discarded after use. Moreover, these useless pots had been adapted for other purposes.
Finally, the author of reading doubts about the use of the battery in previous times. On the contrary, the professor in the lecturer points out that, the evidence of shock or tingling sensation were signs of invisible power for the ancient people to convince others. The lecturer elaborates this by arguing there were records that these minor electric current were used to treat aches and pain. As a result, there is a high chance of use of these batteries.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 408, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ed to treat aches and pain. As a result, there is a high chance of use of these b...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, look, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, as a result, on the contrary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => 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: 1519.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 300.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06333333333 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64627830904 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.523333333333 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 483.3 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.5818038607 49.2860985944 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.3529411765 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6470588235 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06452816374 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
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: 0.107738817778 0.272083759551 40% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0401846771938 0.0996497079465 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0477542971622 0.0662205650399 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0712847783819 0.162205337803 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0356246459469 0.0443174109184 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.77 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.