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 article and the lecture present different perspectives about the applications and objectives of the Carved stone dated in the Neolithic period. The text suggested that the balls might be used as weapons or as a measuring unit of weight and length or as a social status. However, the recording didn't find them convincing and stated the possible reasons behind the claim.
The first point of debate was revolving around the use of stone balls as weapons for hunting or fighting. The professor denied the possibility by pointing out the difference of sign between an arrow head and the stone ball. She argued that the stone balls didn't include any war signing feature like other weapons which indicated that those balls were not for battle purpose. Moreover, she mentioned that the surface of the stone balls were very smooth and undamaged unlike other weapons which also symbolized that the balls were not used as weapons in the war. On the other hand, the reading passage suggested that the balls might be used in hunting or fighting since they had holes and grooves to throw them away to the opposition.
Next argument was connected with the applicability of the carved balls as a standard measurement tool of weight and dimension. The professor argued that the balls were varied based on the stones' composition. More specifically, the stones were not of same dimension and weight; so they couldn't be used as a calibrating device. However, the article was suggesting their use as standard units since they are of uniform size and standard weights.
The final debated was related to the use of the stone balls as a social status. The narrator found the claim inconsistent. She acknowledged that the stone balls had designs on their surface; however some of them were very ordinary. It indicated that those balls were not designed for social purposes. In addition, the powerful persons had their status and other social elements alongside their graves. No presence of stone balls were found in those grave yards. In contrast, the author believed that there might be some connections.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 303, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...s a social status However the recording didnt find them convincing and stated the pos...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 255, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...ne ball She argued that the stone balls didnt include any war signing feature like ot...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 188, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'stones'' or 'stone's'?
Suggestion: stones'; stone's
...that the balls were varied based on the stones composition More specifically the stone...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 282, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...ot of same dimension and weight so they couldnt be used as a calibrating device However...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, moreover, so, in addition, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1727.0 1373.03311258 126% => OK
No of words: 350.0 270.72406181 129% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93428571429 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32530772707 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44662366271 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.46 0.540411800872 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 540.0 419.366225166 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.23620309051 36% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 1.0 13.0662251656 8% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 350.0 21.2450331126 1647% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 0.0 49.2860985944 0% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 1727.0 110.228320801 1567% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 350.0 21.698381199 1613% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 83.0 7.06452816374 1175% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 4.33554083885 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.202596949309 0.272083759551 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.202596949309 0.0996497079465 203% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131935479728 0.162205337803 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0168733455424 0.0443174109184 38% => 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: 176.8 13.3589403974 1323% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -275.31 53.8541721854 -511% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 0.0 5.55761589404 0% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 138.6 11.0289183223 1257% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 12.79 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 24.52 8.42419426049 291% => Dale chall readability score is high.
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 55.0 10.7273730684 513% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 142.0 10.498013245 1353% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.