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.
The lecturer challenges the topic proposed in the reading that it is not likely that the vessels were actually used as electric batteries in ancient times. And she thinks that arguments in the reading are unconvincing.
First, the passage indicates that there is no evidence that any metal wires were located near the vessels. However, the professor points out that the vessels were discovered by local people instead of archaeologists. So other materials might be located near the vessels and local people might overlooked them and even throw them away without any interests.
Second, the article suggests that the copper cylinders inside the jarslook like copper cylinders discovered in the ruins of Seleucia. But the lecturer argues that it is possible that the copper cylinders were used for holding scrolls, whereas ancient people discovered they could be used to gather liquid and generate electricity later. Thus, the copper cylinders could be used for one purposed originally, and used for other purposes later.
Third, the essay supposes that ancient people had nothing to do with the electricity that the vessels probably generated. Nevertheless, the professor considers that the vessel could cause twingling sensation when someone is touching it. So it could be used for people to convince magic power to others. Moreover, it could be used for healing because its currents could relieve pains, which is also utilized by doctors for the same purpose currently.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, look, moreover, nevertheless, second, so, third, thus, whereas
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 19.0 30.3222958057 63% => 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: 1243.0 1373.03311258 91% => OK
No of words: 234.0 270.72406181 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31196581197 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91114542567 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58901007919 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 129.0 145.348785872 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.551282051282 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 387.0 419.366225166 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.6659090831 49.2860985944 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.583333333 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.25 7.06452816374 117% => 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 : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0732844545411 0.272083759551 27% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0307948983117 0.0996497079465 31% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0247127092448 0.0662205650399 37% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0445819400856 0.162205337803 27% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0188952878572 0.0443174109184 43% => 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: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 53.8541721854 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.