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 passage proposes that the discovered clay vessels could not have been used as batteries. The author presents three arguments for this point of view. However, the lecturer refutes all the claims made in the article. She mentions that the containers could have very well been utilized as an electricity source.
To begin with, the author assumes that no metal wires were excavated in the location to conduct generated power from the supposed batteries. Nevertheless, the lecturer point out that the artifacts were unearthed by local untrained people not archaeologists, who did not recognize the importance of wires and they might have thrown them away.
Secondly, the writer holds that since the copper cylinders have the same shape as the cylinders found near the ruins of Seleucia, which is a nearby city, they should have served the same purpose, which was to hold sacred text scrolls. In contrast, the speaker indicates that, yes, they were to preserve scrolls but there is also a possibility that they were later adopted by an ancient discoverer for another use, which is to produce electric current.
Lastly, the excerpt postulates that electricity would have been useless for ancient people as they had no devices that depended on electric power. On the contrary, the professor introduces many benefits for electricity in the ancient world. According to the lecture, these batteries could have been employed to give a mild shock or tingling sensation to show invisible magical force. In addition, doctors today use small electric current to heal pain or aches and it's probable that ancient civilizations did the same with these vessels.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 343, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s and they might have thrown them away. Secondly, the writer holds that since th...
^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 538, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ations did the same with these vessels.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, lastly, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, well, as to, in addition, in contrast, on the contrary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1402.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 268.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23134328358 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04607285448 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59072406709 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.615671641791 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 432.0 419.366225166 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.1261180285 49.2860985944 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.833333333 110.228320801 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3333333333 21.698381199 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.4166666667 7.06452816374 162% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0834234189898 0.272083759551 31% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0310832440557 0.0996497079465 31% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0372554023202 0.0662205650399 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0516198277238 0.162205337803 32% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0371097982577 0.0443174109184 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.3589403974 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.09 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => 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.