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 ball 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 the reading passage, three theories are proposed to explain the purpose and meaning of the carved stone ball. The lecturer, however, argues that none of these hypotheses are convincing. Through relevant reasons and examples, the professor extensively refutes these theories mentioned in the reading passage and substantiates her own points.
First of all, the lecturer argues that weapons used for hunting or fighting, such as arrows or axes, will have some crakes on the surface. However, the carved stone balls are well preserved which indicates no damage on the surface. This directly contradicts the hypothesis that the carved stone balls were used as weapons.
Second, the lecturer suggests that although the stone balls are uniform in size but they are different in their density. Different carved stone balls are made of different types of stone. As a result, the carved stone balls with the same size might vary in their weights. This further refutes the theory that these stone balls are used as standard weights.
Finally, the lecturer asserts that there are many facts which indicate that the carved stone ball can not serve as a social purpose. First, those artifacts which stand for social status usually have intricate pattern. The carved stone ball, however, only has a simple pattern on it. Besides, these artifacts often buried with their owner when they die. But no carved stone balls are found in a tomb or near the grave.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 65, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: uniform
...gests that although the stone balls are uniform in size but they are different in their density...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, finally, first, however, if, second, so, well, such as, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 19.0 30.3222958057 63% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 5.01324503311 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1216.0 1373.03311258 89% => OK
No of words: 238.0 270.72406181 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10924369748 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.92775363542 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.3037934287 2.5805825403 89% => OK
Unique words: 129.0 145.348785872 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.542016806723 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 373.5 419.366225166 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 28.1327014147 49.2860985944 57% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 81.0666666667 110.228320801 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.8666666667 21.698381199 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.33333333333 7.06452816374 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.259497587289 0.272083759551 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102021685741 0.0996497079465 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0690580583442 0.0662205650399 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158509898667 0.162205337803 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0687750217658 0.0443174109184 155% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.6 13.3589403974 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 53.8541721854 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.06 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.