Both the reading and lecture discuss about whether field of archeology faced issues while trying to explore the truth. The former argue that by revealing the most of old architecture, there was three possible issues and limitations was arrested in Britain, but latter challenges each of these points.
First of all, the author of the passage asserts that numerous precious artifacts were lost due to construction activities. However, the professor in the lecture contends that it does not hold true because as per 1990 new guidelines it say that before construction, sites often examined by archeologist. For instance, if building area and local sites has such precious artifacts then obviously government will preserve it and exhibited its documents.
Secondly, according to the passage, the expert opined that unless there is funding support, the archaeological research become limited. In contrast, the lecture objects this idea. She supports her argument by presenting the example of archeologist which usually paid by builder, but not by government. If archeologist really keen on research and interest to uncover such sites then, there is not suspicious to get full funding as well as advocacy by government and helping hands.
Finally, the passage claims that there is arduous to have career in archaeology, as a result only amateurs archaeologist involve in research. Nevertheless, like two suggestions before, the professor in her lecture proclaims that this issues is not feasible because there are huge universities which engage in archaeology research. For example, the professor influence students to explore report with data and analysis, consequently which even skyrocketing of this field than ever before
Both the reading and lecture discuss about whether field of archeology faced issues while trying to explore the truth. The former argue that by revealing the most of old architecture, there was three possible issues and limitations was arrested in Britain, but latter challenges each of these points.
First of all, the author of the passage asserts that numerous precious artifacts were lost due to construction activities. However, the professor in the lecture contends that it does not hold true because as per 1990 new guidelines it say that before construction, sites often examined by archeologist. For instance, if building area and local sites has such precious artifacts then obviously government will preserve it and exhibited its documents.
Secondly, according to the passage, the expert opined that unless there is funding support, the archaeological research become limited. In contrast, the lecture objects this idea. She supports her argument by presenting the example of archeologist which usually paid by builder, but not by government. If archeologist really keen on research and interest to uncover such sites then, there is not suspicious to get full funding as well as advocacy by government and helping hands.
Finally, the passage claims that there is arduous to have career in archaeology, as a result only amateurs archaeologist involve in research. Nevertheless, like two suggestions before, the professor in her lecture proclaims that this issues is not feasible because there are huge universities which engage in archaeology research. For example, the professor influence students to explore report with data and analysis, consequently which even skyrocketing of this field than ever before
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 236, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'saith', 'says'?
Suggestion: saith; says
...e because as per 1990 new guidelines it say that before construction, sites often e...
^^^
Line 7, column 99, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'amateurs'' or 'amateur's'?
Suggestion: amateurs'; amateur's
...career in archaeology, as a result only amateurs archaeologist involve in research. Neve...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, really, second, secondly, so, then, well, while, for example, for instance, in contrast, as a result, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1465.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 265.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.52830188679 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03470204552 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94360425003 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.637735849057 0.540411800872 118% => OK
syllable_count: 446.4 419.366225166 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.3880044921 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.083333333 110.228320801 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0833333333 21.698381199 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 15.6666666667 7.06452816374 222% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => 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: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.301510401727 0.272083759551 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101349031595 0.0996497079465 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.19118887048 0.0662205650399 289% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.22796120814 0.162205337803 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.345128406691 0.0443174109184 779% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 13.3589403974 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 53.8541721854 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.79 12.2367328918 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.91 8.42419426049 118% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 63.6247240618 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.