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.
The main idea of both the passage and the lecture is about the carved stone balls and their plausible purposes and meanings. Having this in mind, the author claims that there are three significant theories that reveal the purposes of these stone balls. The lecturer, on the contrary, categorically refutes all the three theories mentioned in the passage and believes that none of these theories are convincing.
First, both the text and the talk discuss one theory about these stone balls to be used for hunting and fighting. In this line of thought, the author mentions that because of the hole and groove apparent on those stone balls, they might have been used for hunting or fighting. The lecturer, on the other hand, denies this notion, citing that common Neolithic weapons such as arrowheads had signs of wear and if the stone balls were used for the purposes like hunting and fighting, they should show those uses as well or be cracked on the surface. However, the surface of the stone balls were beautifully preserved and revealed no signs of damage.
Second, both the reading and the speech put forth the idea of using these stones for weights and measures. In this vein, the passage explains that these stone balls could have been used as a standard way of weighting crops or grains. Conversely, the lecturer refutes this notion and holds the opinion that each stone ball had different masses which is because each of them was made from different stones like sand and green stones. Accordingly, each type of stone had various densities and as a result, it is vivid that two handfuls of feathers and rocks are different in density like two stone balls. Therefore, it can be concluded that stone balls were not used as a device for weighing and measuring.
Eventually, both the text and the lecture explain the possibility of the stone balls being used for social purposes. While the passage claims that the elaborated designs on the carved stone balls correspond to social purposes, the lecturer denies this idea citing that it is very unlikely and the facts are inconsistent. According to the lecturer, the first thing to have in mind is that some of these stone balls had intricate patterns while others were very simplified. Moreover, it is believed that in ancient times, highly prestigious authorities were buried with their possessions but nothing was found in the tomb or grave. In this regard, the idea that these stone balls were used for social purposes is not true.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, conversely, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, therefore, well, while, such as, as a result, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 10.4613686534 239% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 7.30242825607 329% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 22.412803532 174% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => 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: 2071.0 1373.03311258 151% => OK
No of words: 424.0 270.72406181 157% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.88443396226 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53775939005 4.04702891845 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.38520600382 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 145.348785872 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.457547169811 0.540411800872 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 627.3 419.366225166 150% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.8598741026 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.823529412 110.228320801 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.9411764706 21.698381199 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.94117647059 7.06452816374 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.197400837504 0.272083759551 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0752712268961 0.0996497079465 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0315751897535 0.0662205650399 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12626054017 0.162205337803 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0259635794754 0.0443174109184 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.3589403974 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.32 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 63.6247240618 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.