Based on the given materials, The article as well as the lecture discusses the carved stone balls found in different sites in Scotland. The author states that they are all round in shape and were carved from different stone types but with precision their diameter and size and presents some of the possible usages for them. That being said, the lecturer provides several ideas to repudiate this claim.
Initially, the author says that they might had been used as weapons for hunting since the stones have a hole in it. However the lecturer explains that this idea is highly unlikely because some of the weapons such as arrows has wears which shows that they were used as weapons but the holes are undamaged. She mentions that if they were used for hunting or in wars, they should have had cracks or they were damaged.
Second, the writer proclaims that the artifacts were used as a criteria for measuring weight because they were the same size. Yet again the lecturer asserts that albeit they have the same size, the stones differ in their weights so the theory does not hold water. She points out that the stones were made of different types of materials like sand and grains and as a result of difference in the density of the stones, the mass of the stones vary. So based on the different weights that they had, the stones could not be used for measuring weight.
The final point of contention between the listening and the reading passages is the social purpose of the stones. The author thinks that the stones showed how important was the person who owned it according to the marks on the stones. On the other hand, the speaker gives to different arguments about it. First she mentions that although the stones had some complex marks on them, some of them contained so simple marks that contradicts this idea. Second reason she mentions is that in the past people were buried with their possessions so at least some of the should have been found in temples but none of them were discovered in any graves.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 173, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: round
...nd. The author states that they are all round in shape and were carved from different stone ty...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 287, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...on their diameter and size and presents some of the possible usages for them. That being sa...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 117, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ing since the stones have a hole in it. However the lecturer explains that this idea is...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 189, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...at this idea is highly unlikely because some of the weapons such as arrows has wears which ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 62, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a criterion' or simply 'criteria'?
Suggestion: a criterion; criteria
...oclaims that the artifacts were used as a criteria for measuring weight because they were ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 550, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...ried with their possessions so at least some of the should have been found in temples but n...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, second, so, well, as to, at least, such as, as a result, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 22.412803532 178% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1663.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 356.0 270.72406181 131% => OK
Chars per words: 4.67134831461 5.08290768461 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34372677135 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.14911506349 2.5805825403 83% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 503.1 419.366225166 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.3704747603 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.866666667 110.228320801 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7333333333 21.698381199 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.4 7.06452816374 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
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: 0.271635578928 0.272083759551 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.094528959944 0.0996497079465 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0713406390101 0.0662205650399 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176172228409 0.162205337803 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.077883135064 0.0443174109184 176% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.05 53.8541721854 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.1 12.2367328918 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.93 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.