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.
The reading passage presents three theories about the real purpose of carved stone balls discovered at several locations in Scotland, which date from the late neolithic period around 4000 years ago. The speaker, on the other hand, finds the proposals made in the article unconvincing.
First and foremost, the author claims that they could have been used as weapons for hunting or fighting since they have grooves and holes which allow a cord to be attached to them. In contrast, the lecturer brings up the fact that weapons from this era, such as arrowheads and hand axes, had signs of wear on them. Hence, it was expected to see the surface of the balls cracked or some pieces are broken off. Since the surface is well-preserved, it's questionable that these tools were utilized as weapons.
Secondly, the writer holds that the artifacts could have been employed as a primitive measure for weight since they are remarkably uniform in size. Nonetheless, the lecturer points out that their masses vary too considerably to assume that they served the need of standard weights in a trade. This is mainly due to the fact that they were made of different types of stones.
Lastly, the excerpt posits that the balls could have been a symbol for social status. Conversely, the professor indicates that although some balls have intricate patterns, which lend some support to the idea that they were actually a sign of status, other balls have extremely simple shapes, which are too simple to grant them a chance to be an indicator for social importance. In addition, during the neolithic age in Britain, when people died, their possessions were mostly buried with them. According to the lecture, no balls were found in the tombs or the graves, which casts doubt on this theory of social status.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 286, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...osals made in the article unconvincing. First and foremost, the author claims th...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 132, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: uniform
...re for weight since they are remarkably uniform in size. Nonetheless, the lecturer points out t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 620, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... doubt on this theory of social status.
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, conversely, first, hence, if, lastly, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, well, in addition, in contrast, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => 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: 1502.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 303.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95709570957 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17215713816 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43610413598 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.584158415842 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 446.4 419.366225166 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.0898803456 49.2860985944 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.538461538 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3076923077 21.698381199 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.8461538462 7.06452816374 154% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.265972490285 0.272083759551 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0806411801013 0.0996497079465 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0929668358686 0.0662205650399 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.162521297468 0.162205337803 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0889672920874 0.0443174109184 201% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.3589403974 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27 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.