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 lecture casts doubt on the passage that the vessels found in Iraq were not likely used as electric batteries in ancient times. Instead, the lecture claims that the vessels were possibly used to create electric current.
First of all, the passage claims that the vessels were not used as batteries, since there is no evidence that any metal wires were located near them. However, the lecture refutes the passage by arguing that the vessels were first found by local people, not trained archeologists. So they may not recognize important materials nearby, and even threw them away.
Secondly, the passage states that the copper cylinders inside the jars look exactly like copper cylinders discovered in the ruins of Seleucia, an ancient city located nearby. Since the Seleucia were used for holding scrolls of sacred texts, it is probable that the copper cylinders contained in the vessels were used for holding scrolls as well. Yet the lecture denies the passage by saying that though the cylinders from both places look similar, one they could be adapted to another purpose.
Finally, the passage mentions that since ancient people had no devices that relied on electricity, using vessels as batteries would have been completely useless to them. Nevertheless, the lecture counters the passage by arguing that using vessels as batteries could generate electric shocks, which is invisible power. In that way, some ancient people could use it to prove that they have magic power. Moreover, the electric shock could be used for healing people, such as relieving pains.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, look, may, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, well, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1325.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 255.0 270.72406181 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19607843137 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99608801488 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.33046124111 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 131.0 145.348785872 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.513725490196 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 407.7 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.4830876421 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.416666667 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.25 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.08333333333 7.06452816374 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.117822938851 0.272083759551 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.046976129945 0.0996497079465 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0429504799099 0.0662205650399 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0770858914861 0.162205337803 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.041821766798 0.0443174109184 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.