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 excerpt states that the vessels which are a set of clays that had been excavated two years earlier by villagers constructing a railroad line were not used as electric batteries in ancient times, the author provides three reasons for support. However, the lecture's audio claims that there are a lot of problems with the author theories and she refutes each of them.
To begin with, the article avers that if the vessels were used as batteries, they would probably have been attached to some electrical conductors such as metal wires. In contrast, the professor opposes this point of view by saying that these vessels found out by loco people who were not trained for such a task. So, they might found other things and they did not recognize them. Hence, these wires or conductors might be thrown away. Therefore, this point is not convincing.
Second, the passage posits that the copper cylinders inside the jars look exactly like copper cylinders discovered in the ruins of Seleucia, an ancient located nearby. On the other hand, the speaker asserts this outlook and explains that it is right these copper cylinders were used for holding but that not prove anything because many ancient civilizations had been used the cooper with the iron to produce electricity. Thus, even if they were used for holding purpose, they might be adapted to another purpose after that. So, this theory is definitely wrong.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 268, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lectures'' or 'lecture's'?
Suggestion: lectures'; lecture's
...three reasons for support. However, the lectures audio claims that there are a lot of pr...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, however, if, look, second, so, therefore, thus, in contrast, such as, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 5.01324503311 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1186.0 1373.03311258 86% => OK
No of words: 238.0 270.72406181 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.98319327731 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.92775363542 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.35787298268 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.613445378151 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 360.0 419.366225166 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 74.1575272172 49.2860985944 150% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.818181818 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6363636364 21.698381199 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.3636363636 7.06452816374 147% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 4.09492273731 73% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.176123291889 0.272083759551 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0529772841217 0.0996497079465 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0851672402538 0.0662205650399 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126226856565 0.162205337803 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0887862932075 0.0443174109184 200% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted. The correct pattern:
para 1: introduction
para 2: doubt 1
para 3: doubt 2
para 4: doubt 3
Less contents wanted from the reading passages(25%), more content wanted from the lecture (75%).
Don't need a conclusion paragraph.
Read sample essays from ETS:
http://www.testbig.com/users/toeflwritingmaster
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.