Archaeologists have established that ancient Egyptians used large stone blocks to construct the Pyramids of Giza. However, the question of how they lifted blocks weighing as much as 2.5 tons has yet to be answered, although several theories have been suggested. Three of these theories present the most probable methods.
The first theory is the external ramp theory. This theory suggests that a long, straight ramp was built on one side of the pyramid to transport large stones to the top. As the pyramid grew throughout construction, the ramp would have been extended to reach the higher levels. A long ramp built at a low incline would have allowed builders to drag the stone blocks to each level of the pyramid, and the ramp would have been dismantled after the pyramid was completed.
The second theory is the internal ramp theory. Developed by French architect Jean-Pierre Houdin, this theory suggests that blocks could have been transported upwards using a spiraling ramp inside the pyramid's structure. Houdin theorized that the spiral ramp would have been approximately two meters wide, with wooden cranes placed at each corner to guide the block around the 90 degree angle. The spiral ramp could have been simply covered up and incorporated into the internal structure of the pyramid after construction was finished.
The final theory is the concrete casting theory. The concrete casting theory proposes that Egyptian builders crushed limestone into powder and then mixed it with water. This process would have created a concrete-like substance that would then be formed into blocks in place at the upper levels of the structure, enabling builders to avoid transporting heavy, stone blocks altogether. X-ray analysis of stones from the upper levels of the pyramids shows that their microscopic structure appears to be synthetic, meaning that they could have been cast from concrete.
There has been a lot of discussion about the construction of the Pyramids of Giza. More specifically, regarding the passages, the writer puts forth the idea that three possible theories could explain their construction. In the listening passage, the lecturer is quick to point out that the prominent theories have valid points with critical weaknesses and addresses, in detail, the trouble with each point made in the reading text.
First and foremost, the author believes an external ramp was built on one side, allowing the constructors to transport their supplies. However, some specialists in the same field stand in firm opposition to this claim. In the listening, for example, the professor states that if it were true, then the ramp would have been 1.5 kilometers long. It infers that it would have larger than the pyramid itself. Thus, it would have been unpractical for the Egyptians, and there would have been remaining found.
One group of scholars, represented by the writer, suggests that the internal ramp could have been inside the pyramid as a form of a spiral ramp with 90-degree angle corners. Of course, though, not all experts in this field believe this is accurate. Again, the speaker outlines this point when he notes that although there is no way to confirm or disagree with the theory since the evidence would have been covered after the construction, it was unlikely since the 90-degree angle turn would have been extremely hard.
The article wraps up its argument by positing that the builder could have theoretically used powdered limestone to create blocks in their position instead of carrying it from a different site. The lecturer disputes this claim, arguing that most scientists in all fields agree that limestone was first used two thousand years after the Pyramids of Giza. He goes on to say that even though there is limestone residue, it is highly likely from modern people who attempted to study and preserve it.
To sum up, both passages discuss the prominent theories of the construction of the Pyramids of Giza, but the counterattacks emphasized by the professor effectively challenge the article. They will have trouble finding common ground on the subject.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, regarding, so, then, thus, for example, of course, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 50.0 30.3222958057 165% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1850.0 1373.03311258 135% => OK
No of words: 362.0 270.72406181 134% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11049723757 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36191444098 4.04702891845 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63235753408 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 145.348785872 142% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.569060773481 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 546.3 419.366225166 130% => 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: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.5852628717 49.2860985944 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.625 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.625 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.3125 7.06452816374 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.27373068433 211% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.217867480916 0.272083759551 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0711189205953 0.0996497079465 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0519836245992 0.0662205650399 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118058265234 0.162205337803 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0181353519067 0.0443174109184 41% => 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: 14.0 13.3589403974 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.7 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 63.6247240618 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.