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 and the lecture are both about clay jars that were found in Iraq, which is believed to be used as batteries. The author of the reading believes jars were not likely to be used in such ways and presents several explanations why. The lecturer challenges the statements made by the author. she is of the opinion that what author has said is not convincing.
first of all, the author suggests that the jars should have contained some kind of metal if they were used as batteries. it is mentioned that no such metal has been found nearby. The argument is refuted by the lecturer. she says the people who found the jars were not archeologists but were local people. Furthermore, she argues that the local people might have found metals, but for being not professionals, they could have discarded them.
Secondly, the article posits that the copper cylinders that are inside the jars have similar shape as the cylinders that were found in the ruins of seleucia, which is located nearby. The author notes it is known from the evidence that the cylinders from seleucia were used for containing sacred scrolls. The lecturer, however, casts doubt on this by asserting that it is possible that the cylinders at first were used as scroll containers, but later some ancient genius found that way to use them as batteries. she elaborates on this by mentioning that they could originally be used as containers, but later adjusted to new purposes.
Finally, it is stated in the article that the question will automatically rise that what ancient people who had no knowledge of electricity do with batteries? The author establishes that in ancient times there were no devices for electricity. The lecturer, on the other hand, opposes that the jars as batteries could be used as giving mild shock and tingling sensation. As a result, people thought that the jars had invisible power and some magical properties. she puts forth the idea that they were also used as healing devices because there are modern usages of electricity for the purpose of healing and relaxing people.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 241, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... and presents several explanations why. The lecturer challenges the statements made...
^^^
Line 1, column 300, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: She
...nges the statements made by the author. she is of the opinion that what author has ...
^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: First
...t author has said is not convincing. first of all, the author suggests that the ja...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 122, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: It
...f metal if they were used as batteries. it is mentioned that no such metal has bee...
^^
Line 3, column 221, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: She
...he argument is refuted by the lecturer. she says the people who found the jars were...
^^^
Line 5, column 512, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: She
...ound that way to use them as batteries. she elaborates on this by mentioning that t...
^^^
Line 7, column 462, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: She
...ible power and some magical properties. she puts forth the idea that they were also...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, kind of, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 10.4613686534 268% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 12.0772626932 190% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 22.412803532 161% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1721.0 1373.03311258 125% => OK
No of words: 353.0 270.72406181 130% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87535410765 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33454660006 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55868376048 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.470254957507 0.540411800872 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 534.6 419.366225166 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.9074855116 49.2860985944 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.6111111111 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6111111111 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.11111111111 7.06452816374 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => 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: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0716278274688 0.272083759551 26% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0262575574199 0.0996497079465 26% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0316851875307 0.0662205650399 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.048765656983 0.162205337803 30% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0139668000349 0.0443174109184 32% => 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: 11.4 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.02 12.2367328918 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.89 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => 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.