In the passage, the author talks about the acquisition of couple of clay jars by an archaeologist and goes against the archaeologist's interpretation on the usage of the jars. The author provides three reasons to support her position. However, the speaker refutes the claims that the author makes by three counter-reasons which is provided below.
First, the author suggests that in case of the jars to be used as electrical batteries, conducting wires is a mandatory. As no such wire has been discovered, the passage says that it could not have been electrical batteries. The speaker however opposes this notion by saying that as the jars were found by local people and not by archaeologists, there is no way to tell if there were wire or not. Perhaps the did find the wires but marked as uninteresting because they were not trained personnel. So, if the wire discovery happen to be true, then the possibility of the vessels to be electrical batteries can be possible.
Second, the author posits that, the jars found resemble copper cylinders found in Seleucia that were primarily used to carry scrolls containing holly texts. The author argues that, as the shapes of the two jars are similar, the first jar was also used to hold scrolls and also says no scroll was found because they might have been destroyed over the long course of time. But, the speaker debunks this point and says that in the presence of iron, the copper jar could be used as batteries . The speaker mentions maybe the jars were first made for this purpose but later adapted to a different use.
Third, the author poses a question about the possible use of electricity to the ancient people because they had no electronic device. So even if they were actually batteries, it would have been useless to them. However, the speaker says that there is possibility of mild shocks generating from the device and whenever people went near it and touched it, they might have felt little tinglings. They could have interpreted it as the presence of an invisible power. The speaker mentions another reason that these shocks could have been used for healing. As in today's world, the medical professionals use shocks for the medical purpose. The origin could date back to that time.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 120, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'archaeologists'' or 'archaeologist's'?
Suggestion: archaeologists'; archaeologist's
...y an archaeologist and goes against the archaeologists interpretation on the usage of the jars...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 416, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the speaker debunks this point and says that in the presence of iron, the copper...
^^
Line 5, column 489, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...he copper jar could be used as batteries . The speaker mentions maybe the jars wer...
^^
Line 7, column 644, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ocks for the medical purpose. The origin could date back to that time.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, may, second, so, then, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 10.4613686534 220% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1866.0 1373.03311258 136% => OK
No of words: 384.0 270.72406181 142% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.859375 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4267276788 4.04702891845 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59465309019 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 145.348785872 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494791666667 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 574.2 419.366225166 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 18.0 8.23620309051 219% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.3852437359 49.2860985944 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.2105263158 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2105263158 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.63157894737 7.06452816374 51% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.114172250664 0.272083759551 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0364410495568 0.0996497079465 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0439522109556 0.0662205650399 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0726632601731 0.162205337803 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0321374507579 0.0443174109184 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.3589403974 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.91 12.2367328918 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.84 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.