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
Both reading and listening are talking about the vessel was discovered which related to 2,200 years old. The reading passage presents the fact that vessel were actually employed as an electric batteries in ancient times. However, the lecture finds all the ideas unbelievable and refuted on what stated in the reading passage.
First of all, the reading passage asserts that the vessel served as batteries and it would presumably have been attached to some electricity conductors such as metal wire. On the other hand, the lecture point out this fact that the vessel was discovered by local people not archeologists and the local people didn't trained. Moreover, the vessel overlooked as an its interesting aspect.
Second of all, the author of the reading passage states that the copper cylinders inside of the jars similar to copper cylinders discovered in the ruins of Seleucia for holding scrolls of sacred texts. Conversely, the lecture highlights this important point that it is true the copper cylinders similar to copper cylinders which were discovered from Seleucia for holding scrolls of sacred texts but not prove. The scrolls of sacred texts originally used them to produce electricity. In addition the copper cylinders were originally used for another purpose.
Finally, the reading passage claims that there is no evidence what could ancient people have done with electricity that vessel were assumed to have produced? In contrast, the professor illustrates the fact that ancient people used mild shops and the invisible power and people convince with magical power. Modern medicine stimulates batteries and used them as a same purpose.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 310, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... not archeologists and the local people didnt trained. Moreover, the vessel overlooke...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 360, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'an' or 'its'?
Suggestion: an; its
...ned. Moreover, the vessel overlooked as an its interesting aspect. Second of all, the...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 486, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[2]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: addition,
...ly used them to produce electricity. In addition the copper cylinders were originally us...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, conversely, finally, first, however, look, moreover, second, so, in addition, in contrast, such as, talking about, first of all, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1396.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 262.0 270.72406181 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32824427481 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02323427807 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54208788732 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 133.0 145.348785872 92% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.507633587786 0.540411800872 94% => OK
syllable_count: 433.8 419.366225166 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.3728125509 49.2860985944 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.384615385 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1538461538 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.3076923077 7.06452816374 188% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.130794698881 0.272083759551 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0513211374203 0.0996497079465 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0521119189546 0.0662205650399 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0799025441361 0.162205337803 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0454246446202 0.0443174109184 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 53.8541721854 79% => It means the essay is relatively harder to read.
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.63 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.0 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.