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.
Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they challenge the specific points made in the reading passage.
Some villagers in Iraq excavated a set of clay jars while constructing a railroad line. Two years later these jars were acquired by an archaeologist. These jars contain a copper cylinder surrounding an iron rod. Some archaeologists believe that these are ancient electric batteries. The passage does not approve this idea and gives three reasons for its disapproval. However, the professor opposes each of these three reasons.
First, the reading says that no electricity conductors such as metal strips were found near the vessels. So, these were not batteries. However, the professor refutes this idea by saying that these vessels were discovered by local people who are not trained archaeologist. They may have overlooked any metal wires or simply thrown it.
Second, the article suggests that the copper cylinders found inside those vessels resemble copper cylinders discovered from Seleucia. Copper cylinders were used for holding scrolls of sacred text at Seleucia. Therefore, these cylinders were also used for the same purpose. But the professor opposes this idea by saying that it may happen that these vessels were used for holding scrolls. Later someone discovered it may produce electricity using some liquids. One product used for a purpose adapted to serve another purpose.
Third, the passage states that there were no electrical devices in ancient time. That's why there was no use of these vessels as batteries. However, the professor says that batteries can be used to generate a mild shock or a tingling feeling. It may be used by some people to show their magical power. It may also happen people used batteries for healing like releasing the muscle.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 82, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: That's
... no electrical devices in ancient time. Thats why there was no use of these vessels a...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, look, may, second, so, therefore, third, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 19.0 30.3222958057 63% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 5.01324503311 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1414.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 269.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25650557621 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0498419064 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60722303866 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.546468401487 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 447.3 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 13.0662251656 161% => OK
Sentence length: 12.0 21.2450331126 56% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 25.8797147818 49.2860985944 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 67.3333333333 110.228320801 61% => OK
Words per sentence: 12.8095238095 21.698381199 59% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 3.90476190476 7.06452816374 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
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: 15.0 4.27373068433 351% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.219062463843 0.272083759551 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0773182667706 0.0996497079465 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.121639374559 0.0662205650399 184% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143979315322 0.162205337803 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.1575795827 0.0443174109184 356% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.7 13.3589403974 73% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.84 53.8541721854 94% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.2 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.34 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.87 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.0 10.7273730684 47% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 6.8 10.498013245 65% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.