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 reading passage and the lecture talk about the purpose and meaning of carved stone balls found in Scotland. Despite that, the professor thinks the theories are not convincing and uses specific details to support her idea.
To begin with, the writer in the reading indicates the carved stone balls were weapons used in hunting or fighting. However, the lecturer argues that if the stone balls were used in hunting or fighting, it could have proof of wear. For instance, the stone balls would broke into pieces. Yet, the stone balls found were well-preserved. They are in good condition with little or no damage. As a result, the professor can not give a nod to the author in terms of the first point.
Secondly, about the use of a standard of weight and measures, the reading suggests the stone balls are almost uniform in size so that they can be regarded as standard unit. The lecturer, on the other hand, points out that the stone balls were made of different stones. Each stones has different diversity. In other words, the stones with the same size can have different weights. Therefore, it is not possible the carved stone balls can be used as part of a primitive system of weights and measures.
In addition, the writer claims that carved stone balls could be used to represent the social status of their owners whereas the speaker thinks the design of the stone balls were simple and there was no evidence that the stone balls were buried with high ranking person. Apparently, the lecturer disproves its counterpart in the reading.
To sum up, the author and the professor hold divergent views in this topic.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 269, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'break'
Suggestion: break
...ar. For instance, the stone balls would broke into pieces. Yet, the stone balls found...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 111, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: uniform
...ing suggests the stone balls are almost uniform in size so that they can be regarded as standar...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 270, Rule ID: EACH_EVERY_NNS[1]
Message: 'Each' and 'every' are used with singular. Did you mean 'all'?
Suggestion: All
...ne balls were made of different stones. Each stones has different diversity. In othe...
^^^^
Line 5, column 282, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'have', 'haven'.
Suggestion: have; haven
...e made of different stones. Each stones has different diversity. In other words, th...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, whereas, for instance, in addition, as a result, in other words, to begin with, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1351.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 281.0 270.72406181 104% => OK
Chars per words: 4.80782918149 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09427095027 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.3368944608 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 145.348785872 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.512455516014 0.540411800872 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 405.0 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 55.2550902633 49.2860985944 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 84.4375 110.228320801 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5625 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.1875 7.06452816374 158% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.27373068433 211% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.23980555289 0.272083759551 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0862666864771 0.0996497079465 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0621149463686 0.0662205650399 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129665151713 0.162205337803 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0680404617109 0.0443174109184 154% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.0 13.3589403974 75% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 71.14 53.8541721854 132% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 11.0289183223 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.32 12.2367328918 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.91 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.