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.
Both the reading passage and the lecture discuss whether ancient clay jars were used as electric batteries. The former argues that the vessels were not used as electric batteries for three reasons, but the latter challenges each of these points.
First of all, the author mentions that there was absence of metal wires which are required for electricity conductance. However, the lecturer asserts that the excavation was undertaken by the local people and none of them were archeologists. Therefore, they might be overlooked or thrown away other materials apart from the vessels, which could be electric conductors.
Secondly, the article claims that the copper cylinders, which were retrieved inside the jars, were used to store sacred texts. In contrast, the listening contends that the copper cylinders can transmit electricity whenever loaded with iron rocks or suitable liquids. He added that it may be true that holding sacred texts was one purpose of the cylinders, but transmitting electricity was another purpose of those cylinders.
Finally, the reading states that there were no devices available in the ancient period where electricity could be required. On the contrary, the professor in the listening counters that the electricity could produce mild shock, which might be used as an invisible power and magical power. In addition, this mild electricity also used for healing purposes such as stimulating muscles, easing pain, etc. by the ancient people.
In conclusion, based on the reasons mentioned above, the lecture argues that the argument of the passage is not as tenable as it stands.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, look, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, apart from, in addition, in conclusion, in contrast, such as, first of all, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1364.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 254.0 270.72406181 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.37007874016 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99216450694 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65618224349 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.59842519685 0.540411800872 111% => 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: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => 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: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.8941281787 49.2860985944 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.923076923 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5384615385 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.1538461538 7.06452816374 186% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => 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 : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0864747498184 0.272083759551 32% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0322270690272 0.0996497079465 32% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0368374696831 0.0662205650399 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0468941316094 0.162205337803 29% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0422442894071 0.0443174109184 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.3589403974 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.24 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => 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.