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.
Both the reading passage and the lecture discuss about the purposes of using carved stones. While the author of the article presents three theories on different forms of usage of the stone balls, the lecturer contradicts each of these theories.
First of all, the passage suggest that the carved stones were utilized as weapons for hunting and fighting. Some of them also contained holes, through which a cord was strung and used to throw them. However, the listening argues that no cracks were found on the weapons such as arrow head of that time. If the stone balls had used as weapons, they would have cracks on the surfaces. But the surfaces were preserved and no damages have been discovered.
Secondly, the reading mentions that the stones were used as standard weights, since they were uniform in size. In contrast, the professor in the listening contends that the stones could not be used as standard for measuring weights as they were achieved from different source and had different densities. Some were heavier than others and they couldn't be similar. Just like a handful of feather is not similar to a handful of rock.
Finally, the last theory claims that the carved stones were the symbol of social status. The meticulous design of the stones are the representation of the status of the owner. Nonetheless, the lecture asserts that they were not used as the representation of social status because many of them had simple design, which can not be used as a representation of status. If they had exploited as a form of social status, they would have found on the grave of high rank people. But they were not found in the grave or tomb.
In conclusion, based on the reasons mentioned above, the lecture argues that the theories of the passage is not as tenable as it stands.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 95, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: uniform
...ed as standard weights, since they were uniform in size. In contrast, the professor in the list...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 345, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
... Some were heavier than others and they couldnt be similar. Just like a handful of feat...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, while, in conclusion, in contrast, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1489.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 310.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.80322580645 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45203943658 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.483870967742 0.540411800872 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 450.0 419.366225166 107% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.7169315164 49.2860985944 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.5882352941 110.228320801 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2352941176 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.70588235294 7.06452816374 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => 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: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.237106463045 0.272083759551 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0852913758779 0.0996497079465 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0613891630878 0.0662205650399 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114906221591 0.162205337803 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0700755546086 0.0443174109184 158% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.3 13.3589403974 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
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: 10.56 12.2367328918 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.