Carved stone balls are a curious type of artifact found at a number of locations in Scotland. They date from the late Neolithic period, around 4,000 years ago. They are round in shape; they were carved from several types of stone; most are about 70 mm in diameter; and many are ornamented to some degree. Archaeologists do not agree about their purpose and meaning, but there are several theories. One theory is that the carved stone balls were weapons used in hunting or fighting. Some of the stone balls have been found with holes in them, and many have grooves on the surface. It is possible that a cord was strung through the holes or laid in the grooves around the ball. Holding the stone balls at the end of the cord would have allowed a person to swing it around or throw it. A second theory is that the carved stone balls were used as part of a primitive system of weights and measures. The fact that they are so nearly uniform in size – at 70 mm in diameter – suggests that the balls were interchangeable and represented some standard unit of measure. They could have been used as standard weights to measure quantities of grain or other food, or anything that needed to be measured by weight on a balance or scale for the purpose of trade. A third theory is that the carved stone balls served a social purpose as opposed to a practical or utilitarian one. This view is supported by the fact that many stone balls have elaborate designs. The elaborate carving suggests that the stones may have marked the important social status of their owners.
In this set of material, the reading and the lecture both discus the carved stone ball purpose of use and meaning. While the reading states that stone ball have several advantages and social meaning according to some theories and explains by giving three supportive reasons. The lecture refutes thixs cliams by saying that no one of these theories is convincing and opposes each and every reason stated by the writer.
First, the reading claims that the ball stone are used for hunting and fighting because it contain some features like hole and gooves to use core with it and swing it for this purpose. However, the lecture argues that each instruments used for hunting have some wear like arrow, therefore, the stone should have wear or crack or broken pieces if used for the purpose mentioned in the reading. IIn contrast, the stone ball well presented with no damage.
Secondly, the reading makes the arguments that it used for weight and measure purposes as it have uniform size so certainly it iwas used for measuremnet. The lecture counters this point by stating that thier masses is not the same and each type have different density. However, the professor says that even though two balls have same size, they are differ in weight. Appearantly, the weight purpose should not taken as consideration.
Lastly, the reading argues that it used as cultural purposebecause of their design which point the essential social role for their owner. Onthe other hand, the lecture refutes this claim by pointing out that its simple design not looks as statue and when their owner died should buried with them. Infact, the stone ball never found in graves so this is unlikely to represent social status of the persons.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 379, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... theories is convincing and opposes each and every reason stated by the writer. ...
^^
Line 2, column 92, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'contains'?
Suggestion: contains
...sed for hunting and fighting because it contain some features like hole and gooves to u...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 350, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'differed'.
Suggestion: differed
...ough two balls have same size, they are differ in weight. Appearantly, the weight purp...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, lastly, look, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, while, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1430.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 290.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93103448276 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12666770723 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.29459375995 2.5805825403 89% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.534482758621 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 437.4 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.5831668264 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.0 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3076923077 21.698381199 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06452816374 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
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: 0.0989171562376 0.272083759551 36% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0423599829654 0.0996497079465 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.039724637768 0.0662205650399 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0614827455972 0.162205337803 38% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0203973193266 0.0443174109184 46% => 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: 12.9 13.3589403974 97% => 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: 11.61 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.