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.
Concerning the issue what is the function of carved stone balls which are an artifact found in Scotland? The author presents three theories for that speculation, while the writer's statements encounter serious dissensions from the professor.
First, the author declares that carved stone ball is used for hunting and fighting because many stone balls have holes and grooves, which make people easily to hold the ball. However, the professor disclaims this argument and holds that it is illogical that it should have some crack on the ball's surface, but most of the stone balls are well preserved.
Second, the writer asserts that the function of carved stone balls is as part of the primitive system of weights and measures because of their uniform size. On the contrary, the seemingly plausible statement is critically rebuked by the professor's account from a conflicting angle that their mass is considerably different. Even their formation and density are different. Thus, it is obvious to clarify that carved stone balls are not used in the system of weight.
Last, the statement from author that these carved stone balls have their social purpose, which presents their social status. Even so, the professor stands in stark opposition to this statement by pointing out that the decoration sometimes is too simple so that hard to consider that they represent social status. Moreover, it is common for high-ranking people to have some precious things in their graves, while none of the carved stone balls can be found in these graves.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, thus, well, while, even so, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1288.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 251.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.13147410359 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98032404683 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48669416668 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 132.0 145.348785872 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.525896414343 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 381.6 419.366225166 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.123478645 49.2860985944 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.090909091 110.228320801 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8181818182 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.18181818182 7.06452816374 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.223038605858 0.272083759551 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.09182696563 0.0996497079465 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0551622774191 0.0662205650399 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143688492463 0.162205337803 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0148575257144 0.0443174109184 34% => 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: 14.1 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.