The ancient clay jars excavated in Iraq might have been used as a source of energy.
This material addresses the question of whether the ancient clay jars excavated in Iraq might have been used to produce electricity. The reading passage suggests three arguments in support of the view that they could have not been utilized as a source of energy. Meanwhile, the lecturer refutes this information by stating that the vessels are an ancient analogue of electric batteries.
To begin with, the reading passage highlights that the vessels contained no wires or other conductors to be used as an energy source. However, the professor casts doubt on this and argues that the jars were found by ordinary people, who, as opposed to archaeologists, could have not noticed or recognized the relevant parts while excavating the items.
Additionally, the article posits that the internal part of the jars was similar to the items found earlier and proved to be used to fix scrolls of ancient texts. On the other hand, the professor advocates a different approach and provides the following details. Namely, she mentions that initially the vessels might have been used in the way described in the article, but later another possibility of using the jars with iron rods and liquid inside could have been discovered.
Finally, the author invites the attention to the fact that ancient people had nothing to do with electricity. This goes counter to the information in the listening passage, according to which, the electric current might have been used as an evidence of magical power, and for treating people, as it is being done nowadays.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 25, Rule ID: WHETHER[3]
Message: Wordiness: Shorten this phrase to the shortest possible suggestion.
Suggestion: whether; the question whether
This material addresses the question of whether the ancient clay jars excavated in Iraq...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, so, while, to begin with, on the other hand
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 : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1293.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 254.0 270.72406181 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0905511811 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99216450694 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64583625739 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.570866141732 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 405.0 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => 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: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.0475318689 49.2860985944 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.3 110.228320801 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.4 21.698381199 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06452816374 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
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 : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.442332268593 0.272083759551 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.149726692883 0.0996497079465 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.147174523732 0.0662205650399 222% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.25068939023 0.162205337803 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.141437455801 0.0443174109184 319% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 13.3589403974 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 53.8541721854 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.35 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.