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 jarslook exactly like copper cylinders discovered in the ruins of Seleucia, an ancientcity 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 passage and lecture have conflicting opinions about whether the vessels which were discovered by local inhabitants contain electric batteries of earlier times. The lecturer adamantly delineates that three compelling assumptions prove it creates electricity. On the other hand, the author strongly postulates that there is not enough evidence to believe it carries electrons.
First and foremost, according to the professor in the lecture, vessels were discovered by local people, not archaeologists. That means it is highly possible that the residents might overlook its importance or not recognise the electrical conductors which were near the vessels. Since they were not trained people, they even could throw away it. Nonetheless, the article offsets these points by declaring that if it was utilised as batteries, they would definitely contain some electricity conductors such as metal wires.
Secondly, the professor further asserts that even though jars were alike to some copper cylinders which were discovered near this area, there is no evidence to prove it. Additionally, if these containers were originally designed as keeping sacred notes, they might have been repurposed as generators of electricity. To be more specific, it was created as only one purpose at the beginning, but later it adopted another intention. these claims refute the writer's indications about the jars are similar to some findings which near its founded area. In addition to this, it could be used as providing scrolls of divine texts which was founded as broken apart in some area.
Lastly, the speaker in the lecture insists that they might have been used as healing patients by ancient doctors because they were very similar to some modern therapies. Furthermore, she points out that they were perceived as invisible power for earlier humans due to its features of causing mild shock and tangling. The author counters these indications by suggesting that in the past, there was no need for generating electricity because there was no equipment rely on electricity.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 431, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: These
...but later it adopted another intention. these claims refute the writers indications a...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, if, lastly, look, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, in addition, such as, on the other hand
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: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 22.412803532 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1751.0 1373.03311258 128% => OK
No of words: 323.0 270.72406181 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42105263158 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23936324884 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76890981488 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.56346749226 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 554.4 419.366225166 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 30.9900342404 49.2860985944 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.733333333 110.228320801 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5333333333 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.8 7.06452816374 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
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: 0.0738007702746 0.272083759551 27% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0262270696214 0.0996497079465 26% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0219248824908 0.0662205650399 33% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0475292361774 0.162205337803 29% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0156096479557 0.0443174109184 35% => 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: 14.9 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 53.8541721854 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.2367328918 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.47 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 63.6247240618 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.