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 vessel was about 2,200 years old. Each clay jay contained a copper cylinder surrounding an iron rod. The archaeologist proposed that vessel 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 replied on electricity. As batteries, the vessels would have been completely useless to them.
The article introduces an archaeologist in Iraq who acquired a set of clay jars which have been found by villagers. Each of which contained a copper cylinder surrounding by an iron rod. He proposed that the vessel were ancient electric batteries. The author does not believe them to be batteries and states his opinions about it not being a battery. However, the professor does not consider his statements enough to prove that they were not batteries.
First, the article claims that since there were no conductors such as wires attached to them, they were something else. However, the professor points to the fact that they were discovered by villagers who was not trained archaeologists. Hence, they might be some conductors attached to them but have been considered not to be important and thrown away.
Second, the author claims that the copper cylinders were look alike cylinders discovered in Seleucia which were being used as holder for scrolls of sacred texts. Despite the lecturer agrees with this similarity but he deeply believes that this does not prove anything. He claims that they might be designed as holders at the first place but later they have been discovered to have such a capability.
At last, the author mentions that in ancient times they were no devices and applications to benefit from electricity and it would be nonsense to have batteries. The professor disagree with his statement and points to its probable uses. He claims that they might be used to produce electric shocks which might be considered magical power in those times or they might be used for some sort of healing like the therapies that benefit from electrical current nowadays.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, however, look, second, so, sort of, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 10.4613686534 210% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 22.412803532 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => 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: 1409.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 279.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05017921147 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08696624509 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60131111988 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 141.0 145.348785872 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.505376344086 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 432.0 419.366225166 103% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.6351990018 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.642857143 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9285714286 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.42857142857 7.06452816374 63% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => 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 : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.109424706723 0.272083759551 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0572522371661 0.0996497079465 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103656574456 0.0662205650399 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0828893567424 0.162205337803 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.103628792676 0.0443174109184 234% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.03 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.