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 reading passage and the lecture talk about the vessels used as electronic batteries in ancient times. Despite that, the professor thinks the arguments in the reading are not correct. She casts doubt on every single point the reading make and provides details to support her idea in the lecture.
To begin with, the reading indicates that there is no metal wires found near the vessels, hence, it is not possible that the vessels were used as batteries. However, the lecturer argues that the vessels were found by the local people. They might find other materials but they did not provide them to the archaeologists. These material may been overlooked or thrown away already. As a result, she can not give a nod to the author in terms of the first point.
Secondly, about the shape of the copper cylinders, the writer thinks the purpose of the copper cylinders is likely to be holding scrolls of sacred texts whereas the professor pointed out the similar shapes can not prove its purpose. It is possible that the vessels were utilized for holding scrolls at the first but later applying to electricity purpose. In other words, they adapted to another purpose in the end. Apparently, she disproves its counterpart in the reading.
In addition, the author suggests that there is no devices required electricity in that time. The speaker, on the other hand, believes it could be used as an invisible power for magic purpose. Or it could be healing purpose to stimulate the muscle to reduce the pain. Hence, she can not support the opinion of the third point.
To sum up, the writer and the professor have conflicting views on this topic.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 336, Rule ID: PRP_PAST_PART[4]
Message: Did you mean 'may be' or 'has been'?
Suggestion: may be; has been
...m to the archaeologists. These material may been overlooked or thrown away already. As a...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 39, Rule ID: THERE_S_MANY[4]
Message: Did you mean 'there are no devices'?
Suggestion: there are no devices
... In addition, the author suggests that there is no devices required electricity in that time. The ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, but, first, hence, however, look, may, second, secondly, so, third, whereas, in addition, as a result, in other words, to begin with, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => 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: 1368.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 282.0 270.72406181 104% => OK
Chars per words: 4.85106382979 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09790868904 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44664404833 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.539007092199 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 421.2 419.366225166 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 3.25607064018 276% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.5245705486 49.2860985944 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 80.4705882353 110.228320801 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.5882352941 21.698381199 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.2352941176 7.06452816374 145% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0712793864188 0.272083759551 26% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0194825049953 0.0996497079465 20% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0242141814489 0.0662205650399 37% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0331310091722 0.162205337803 20% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0218748990225 0.0443174109184 49% => 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: 9.7 13.3589403974 73% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.55 12.2367328918 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => 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.