The reading states that there are several reasons that the archaeologist proposed that vessels were ancient electric batteries and even demonstarted that they can produce a small electric current when filled with some liquid, but it is not likely that the vessels used as a batteries. On the other hand, the lecturer finds all the reasons mentioned by the readind dubious and refutes them all by specific details.
First, the reading states that if the vessels were used as batteries, they would probably have been attached to some electricity conductor such as metal wires, but there is no evidence to prove this idea. On the contrary, the professor mentioned the fact that the wiers inventad by local people, not archaeologist, so they could use another materials.
Furtermore, the author argues that That no scrolls were found inside the jars can be explained by the fact that the scrolls simply disintegrated over the centuries. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that we believe people in the past use the copper cylinders for one perpose, but they could use them for another reasons that is not apper for us until now.
Finally, the reading passage holds the view that people in the past had no devices that relied on electricity. In contrast, the speaker dismisses this issue due to the fact that batteries could use for healing, and nawadays everyone can say they have a magical power.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 273, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a batterie', 'a battery' or simply 'batteries'?
Suggestion: a batterie; a battery; batteries
... is not likely that the vessels used as a batteries. On the other hand, the lecturer finds ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 31, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: that
...terials. Furtermore, the author argues that That no scrolls were found inside the jars c...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, finally, first, if, so, in contrast, such as, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 20.0 30.3222958057 66% => 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: 1170.0 1373.03311258 85% => OK
No of words: 236.0 270.72406181 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.95762711864 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91947592106 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5469450413 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 133.0 145.348785872 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.563559322034 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 361.8 419.366225166 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 13.0662251656 61% => 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: 51.3517283059 49.2860985944 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.25 110.228320801 133% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.5 21.698381199 136% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.125 7.06452816374 172% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.0485839897001 0.272083759551 18% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0211823449705 0.0996497079465 21% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0144504080206 0.0662205650399 22% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0302612185637 0.162205337803 19% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00932696946089 0.0443174109184 21% => 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: 16.7 13.3589403974 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.5 53.8541721854 94% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.0289183223 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.08 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 63.6247240618 85% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 10.7273730684 168% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.498013245 130% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.