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 reading asserts that a set of ancient jars were found in iraq in 1938 are actually batteries. The lecturer, however, challenges the statements by the author, and provides reasons to refute them.
first of all, the writer argues that since no additional materials were found with the vessels, they are not electronic batteries. Conversely, the speaker brings up the fact that the jars were found by local people who did not have archeological knowledge. Therefore, they might have found some materials, but thrown the extra parts away because they were not aware of what are those, or saw no importance in them.
Secondly, the author claims that because the copper cylinders in jars of iraq are similar to objects founded in Seleucia, they have the same function as holding sacred texts. On the contrary, the speaker underlines the idea that maybe at first the vessels were used as text holders, but after that people got them mixed with iron to use them as electronic batteries. Moreover, they turned the text holder to ancient batteries as the ancient kind of them.
Finally, it is stated in the passage that the jars had no use in that time, so the thought of having batteries producing electricity was absurd. In contrast, the lecturer dismisses this issue due to the fact that the vessels could have been used as batteries to create smooth shock or tingling on people's bodies as a representative of power. Another possible use could be for healing. We know that modern medicine uses this power to stimulate nerves. There is the possibility that ancient people used vessels to serve this aim as well.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 74, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... ancient jars were found in iraq in 1938 are actually batteries. The lecturer, ho...
^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: First
...and provides reasons to refute them. first of all, the writer argues that since no...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, conversely, finally, first, however, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, in contrast, kind of, first of all, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1340.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 274.0 270.72406181 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89051094891 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0685311056 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51669527916 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.56204379562 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 414.9 419.366225166 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => 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: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.4900574724 49.2860985944 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.076923077 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0769230769 21.698381199 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.0769230769 7.06452816374 171% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0733039450232 0.272083759551 27% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0284539203161 0.0996497079465 29% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0344352328137 0.0662205650399 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0499351657304 0.162205337803 31% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.025282979837 0.0443174109184 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.08 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.