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

The reading states that a set of clay jars were excavated by local people which belonged to 2,200 years ago in Iraq, and 2 years later in 1938 an archeologist proposed that these vessels were the first ancient batteries because they can generate a small current of electricity. However, the speaker finds all dubious and presents some facts to refute them all.

First, the writer states that there was not any evidence of wires or conductors such as metal which is essential to produce the electricity. Conversely, the professor pointed that the clay jars were found by local untrained people who were not archeologist and they might not recognize the importance of other materials found near the archeological site.

Furthermore, the reading said that there were some copper cylinders inside the jar which were resemble to that of discovered in the ruins of Seleucia, located nearby, and used for holding scrolls of holy texts. In contrast, the speaker underlies that the ancient people might use copper cylinders firstly as a holder for scrolls but during time the in combination with wires they might have invented ancient batteries for other purposes.

Finally, the author stated that ancient people had not invented any electrical devices, consequently batteries were completely useless. On the contrary, the professor dismisses this issue and brings the fact that a light current of electricity might had used to persuade others by ancient people that they had magical power. Additionally, in these days the weak current of electricity may use to stimulate some parts of the body for healing from pain.

Votes
Average: 8.5 (1 vote)
Essay Categories

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 95, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'resembled'.
Suggestion: resembled
...per cylinders inside the jar which were resemble to that of discovered in the ruins of S...
^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, conversely, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, may, so, in contrast, such as, on the contrary

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

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => 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: 1358.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 262.0 270.72406181 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18320610687 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02323427807 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64545396201 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.553435114504 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 418.5 419.366225166 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => 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: 29.0 21.2450331126 137% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 57.4110154183 49.2860985944 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 150.888888889 110.228320801 137% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.1111111111 21.698381199 134% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.7777777778 7.06452816374 195% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 4.33554083885 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.176510546097 0.272083759551 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0681651689151 0.0996497079465 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0911515717979 0.0662205650399 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113244017915 0.162205337803 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0820743503425 0.0443174109184 185% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.5 13.3589403974 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 53.8541721854 78% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.0289183223 132% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.36 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.81 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.498013245 130% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.