The reading states that the ancient clay jars discovered in Iraq by the villagers could not have been used as electric batteries by providing three reasons for it. On the other hand, the professor avers that the jar could have been used as electric batteries by furnishing with three reasons.
First, the reading claims that since there were no wires found in the nearby area where the jars were discovered, it is unlikely that they would have been used as an electric battery. On contrast, the professor supports her conviction by stating that since the villagers weren't trained archaeologist, there is possibility that they did not identify wires, while finding jars, as an archaeologist would have.
Second, the reading compares the two discoveries, one in Iraq and other in Seleucia. It claims that as the jars found in Seleucia were used for holding scrolls and not as batteries, it is likely that same was the case with the jars found in Iraq. The professor refutes the reasoning by stating that, it could very well be possible that the jars would have been adapted to be used as electric batteries at a later stage.
Third, the article says that since there were no devices present in Iraq 2200 years ago, the jars could not have been used as electric batteries. The professor, providing her logic, states other utility of electric batteries such as medical purposes or ancient healing. Moreover, she claims that the batteries could have been used for magical purposes.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 272, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: weren't
...ion by stating that since the villagers werent trained archaeologist, there is possibi...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, if, moreover, second, so, third, well, while, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => 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: 1236.0 1373.03311258 90% => OK
No of words: 250.0 270.72406181 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.944 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.97635364384 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.46843756251 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 121.0 145.348785872 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.484 0.540411800872 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 378.9 419.366225166 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => 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: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.5697005041 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.6 110.228320801 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 21.698381199 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.9 7.06452816374 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.132059488602 0.272083759551 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0617104525315 0.0996497079465 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0357226080335 0.0662205650399 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.090141551565 0.162205337803 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0133955524202 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: 14.3 13.3589403974 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.67 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 63.6247240618 85% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.