Both the reading and the listening talk about the intentions and meaning of a carved stone balls dated to the late Neolithic period which is about 4000 years ago. The former gives three theories showing what their purpose was. The professor, on the other hand, casts doubt on these theories by saying that none of the three hypotheses mentioned in the text are convincing enough to believe so for the following reasons.
First of all, both the text and the lecture posit whether carved stone balls were used as weapons when hunting or fighting. The author explains that some of those stones have holes in them or grooves on their surface which is a sign allowing an individual to swing them around or throw them in hunting or fighting. The speaker, in contrast, rebuts the idea by pointing out that if they were used as weapons for fighting or hunting as stated in the reading, these stones have to be cracked or have pieces broken off. Nonetheless, carved stones are very well-preserved without any damages on them which demonstrates that the first hypothesis about them is incorrect.
Second of all, both the article and the lecturer put forward whether those stone balls were used as a scale for weights and measures or not. The article asserts that they had uniform size helping them to be used as a primitive standard for measuring or weighing. The lecturer, however, refutes this notion by explaining that maybe these stone balls had uniform sizes but they were also massive making them hard to use for such purposes. According to her, they were made from different stone types like green stones and so on. Also, each stone had different density which resulted in some of them be heavier than others. As a result, their weight were dependent on the stones they were composed of. Hence, the second theory is false too.
Finally, both the writer and the professor put forth the idea that whether the stone balls served as a social status marker or not. The writer avers that because these stone balls had some elaborate designs, it can be concluded that they were served as a social purpose demonstrating the importance of their owners. The lecture passage, conversely, rejects the idea by stating that there are some evidence which indicates that some of stones had intricate patterns; Also, many of them had too simple marks. Accordingly, they can't be used as static symbol for social status of individuals of that time. Also, these stone balls have not found in graves to show such purposes.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 92, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'ball'?
Suggestion: ball
...ntentions and meaning of a carved stone balls dated to the late Neolithic period whic...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 428, Rule ID: MOST_SOME_OF_NNS[1]
Message: After 'some of', you should use 'the' ('some of the stones') or simply say ''some stones''.
Suggestion: some of the stones; some stones
... are some evidence which indicates that some of stones had intricate patterns; Also, many of t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 526, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...had too simple marks. Accordingly, they cant be used as static symbol for social sta...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, conversely, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, nonetheless, second, so, well, in contrast, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 10.4613686534 201% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 7.30242825607 233% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 22.412803532 187% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 46.0 30.3222958057 152% => 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: 2080.0 1373.03311258 151% => OK
No of words: 430.0 270.72406181 159% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.83720930233 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55372829156 4.04702891845 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.34748291604 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 145.348785872 145% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.490697674419 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 640.8 419.366225166 153% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.1241290549 49.2860985944 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.473684211 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6315789474 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.68421052632 7.06452816374 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.265480104552 0.272083759551 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.091275130241 0.0996497079465 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0772044437873 0.0662205650399 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.162142144061 0.162205337803 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0339367356615 0.0443174109184 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => 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: 11.09 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 63.6247240618 160% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 63.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.0 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.