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.
In the reading passage, the author concentrates on several theories to support the fact that carved stone balls found in Scotland have had particular purposes. However, the lecturer casts doubt on these theories and respectively points out the problems with all the author's assertions.
Firstly, the author argues that these stone balls may have been employed in hunting or fighting. By contrast, the lecturer challenges this idea and states that common weapons in the Neolithic period, like arrows, had been worn down over time. If these stone balls had served hunting purposes, they should have been found in such poor conditions. However, they are well preserved, undergoing no or little damage.
Secondly, the author argues that these carved stone balls may have been used to measure different objects. Nevertheless, the lecturer brings up the fact that these stone balls have been made from different materials which have contrasting densities. Thus, for example, two balls of the same size have not equal weights, suggesting that they could not be used as standard weights.
Lastly, the author asserts that they may have been used to mark the social status of their owners. Conversely, the lecturer refutes this claim too and clarifies that not all of these stones were patterned, and some have no decoration on them. They were just simple. In addition, none of these stone balls have been discovered in tombs and graves, which contradicts the opinion saying these balls served special functions relating to social status.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 391, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...er, they are well preserved, undergoing no or little damage. Secondly, the author...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, may, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, thus, well, for example, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => 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: 1286.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 246.0 270.72406181 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.22764227642 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96035189615 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44603328988 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.556910569106 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 375.3 419.366225166 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.2158377939 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.9230769231 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9230769231 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.69230769231 7.06452816374 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.190743987289 0.272083759551 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0856991772612 0.0996497079465 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0487405995607 0.0662205650399 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12841183577 0.162205337803 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0137243777542 0.0443174109184 31% => 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: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.57 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.