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 is about the theory regarding carved stone purpose and use. It provides three supporting ideas in order to bolster its claim. However, the speaker says, none of the theory is convincing to accept. She refutes each of the passage reasoning.
First, the article asserts that the stone were used as a weapon for hunting and waring. But, the lecturer denies this claim and she says, in Neolithic period the arrowhead were used in war. She further describes, as the surface of those stones were pristine and unspoiled so, they were not used for hunting and fighting.
Second, the reading states that the primitive stone were used for measurement and weighing. However, the professor refutes this theory. She says, although the stone were uniformed in size but different stone had different densities. For this reason, it was apparent to see the two ball of stone same in size but actually they were different in weight.
Third, the written excerpt claims that the stone were served as a social status. The point is quite incoherent with the narrator. The professor delineates, some of the stones were intricate in design, and others were too simple. Moreover, she says, if the stone had any precious value then they were obviously found in the burial site. In reality, there was no stones found in the grave.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 199, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'accepting'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'convince' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: accepting
... says, none of the theory is convincing to accept. She refutes each of the passage reason...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 296, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: same
...s apparent to see the two ball of stone same in size but actually they were different in wei...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 332, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: different
...one same in size but actually they were different in weight. Third, the written excerpt claims t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 157, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...the narrator. The professor delineates, some of the stones were intricate in design, and ot...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, however, if, moreover, regarding, second, so, then, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 12.0772626932 25% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => 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: 1106.0 1373.03311258 81% => OK
No of words: 223.0 270.72406181 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.95964125561 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.86434787811 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.35064852173 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 122.0 145.348785872 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.547085201794 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 340.2 419.366225166 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 26.0731393152 49.2860985944 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 69.125 110.228320801 63% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.9375 21.698381199 64% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.9375 7.06452816374 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => 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: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.215921471113 0.272083759551 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0724423044111 0.0996497079465 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0555850690529 0.0662205650399 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134808781032 0.162205337803 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.040211271112 0.0443174109184 91% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.9 13.3589403974 67% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 66.74 53.8541721854 124% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 11.0289183223 65% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.9 12.2367328918 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 57.0 63.6247240618 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.2 10.498013245 69% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.