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 author of the reading passage and the professor both discuss a set of clay jars being possible ancient batteries. The author mentions that these vessels were not likely to use as electric batteries. However, the professor discords with the ideas mentioned in the reading passage. He offers several reasons to oppose the argument of this article.
First of all, in the article the author claims that no metal wires appeared near the vessels. However, The professor indicates that these clay jars were found by local people, and these people were not trained as archaeologists. Therefore, the professor actually believes that there could be other materials existing nearby, yet these materials may not be served as metal wires.
Second, the author states that these vessels were used for holding scrolls of sacred texts. Yet, The professor mentions that these vessels combined with some iron rocks and liquid could produce electric power. Moreover, the professor thinks that these clay jars may be used for many purposes, not just one. Thus, the professor can conclude that these vessels may be ancient batteries.
Finally, the author of the article indicates there is no evidence that ancient people relied on electricity. However, The professor points out that ancient people could use these clay jars to produce shocks as an invisible power when other people touched them. Furthermore, ancient people may use this power to heal their diseases and release their pains. As a result, the professor take the position that ancient could rely on electricity for certain purpose.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 247, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this clay' or 'these clays'?
Suggestion: this clay; these clays
...er. Moreover, the professor thinks that these clay jars may be used for many purposes, not...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, finally, first, furthermore, however, may, moreover, second, so, therefore, thus, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 19.0 30.3222958057 63% => 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: 1335.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 254.0 270.72406181 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25590551181 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99216450694 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.40468689543 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 128.0 145.348785872 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.503937007874 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 406.8 419.366225166 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: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 24.7224594246 49.2860985944 50% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 89.0 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.9333333333 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.8 7.06452816374 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.27373068433 211% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.104177531096 0.272083759551 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.041113616276 0.0996497079465 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.046735632215 0.0662205650399 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.073005277309 0.162205337803 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.014139997584 0.0443174109184 32% => 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: 11.8 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.93 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 65.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.5 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.