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 jay contained a copper cylinder surrounding an iron rod. The archaeologist proposed that vessel 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 replied on electricity. As batteries, the vessels would have been completely useless to them.
The reading passage suggested that the vessels found in the excavation of Iraq might not be the possible sources of electric batteries. However, the lecture denied the concept and argued over some definite reasons.
First and foremost, the reading passage concluded that the vessels could not be used as electric batteries as there were no evidence of metal wires in nearby areas. However, the lecture suggested this may not be true as there might be some conductive materials within the near locations but those elements might not be properly distinguished by the local people as they are not the trained excavator. The lecture has a very noteworthy takeout from the information provided in the reading passage - as the excavation was mainly done by the villagers, it is very much possible that they misunderstood those conductive metal wires as of residuals and thereby had let those to go astray.
The second thing that lecture emphasized upon is that - those vessels might be initially made in order to hold scrolls of sacred texts however, that does not imply that they could not be used as electric batteries. It is very much possible that people of the mentioned times might know about the vessels that when filled with some liquid generate small amount of electric current. As a result, they might use those vessels as electric batteries in later times that is to say after the innovation of those vessels as scroll holders.
The final and last thing with which the lecture concluded is that - it might be inaccurate of dismissing the vessels as not the electric batteries if it is assumed that at the designated time there were no application of electricity simply because there were no devices to be used those upon. It prompted the vessels may be used as electric batteries in healing purposes or as a source of invisible power to entertain people or also for stimulating muscle. These are the points upon which the lecture disagreed with the idea of the reading passage.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, so, as a result, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 10.4613686534 210% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1650.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 335.0 270.72406181 124% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92537313433 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27820116611 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57271955202 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.45671641791 0.540411800872 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 532.8 419.366225166 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 30.0 21.2450331126 141% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 66.8362993372 49.2860985944 136% => OK
Chars per sentence: 150.0 110.228320801 136% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.4545454545 21.698381199 140% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.81818181818 7.06452816374 97% => 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 : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.045162622323 0.272083759551 17% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0230018499518 0.0996497079465 23% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0209882767169 0.0662205650399 32% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0357337820104 0.162205337803 22% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.013332757401 0.0443174109184 30% => 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: 17.0 13.3589403974 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.03 53.8541721854 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.0289183223 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.91 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.57 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 10.498013245 133% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.