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 listening discuss the purpose and meaning of carved stone balls found in Scotland. Despite that, the professor claims that the arguments presented in the article are not convincing. She casts doubt on every single point the reading makes and provide details to support her idea in the lecture.
To begin with, the author in the reading suggests that the carved stone balls were weapons used in hunting or fighting. However, the lecturer argues that common weapons usually have wears and show broken pieces if they were used for fighting, The carved stones found in Scotland are well-preserved. It is not possible that their purpose were weapons. As a result, she can not give a nod to the author in terms of the first point.
Secondly, the reading passage believes that the carved stones were used as primitive standard for weights and measures whereas the speaker challenges this statement. She points out that the density of carved stones varies because the stones were made of different kinds of stones such as sand stones and green stones. Two carved stones with same size may have different weights. Apparently, the professor disproves its counterpart in the reading.
In addition, the writer claims that the carved stones were served for social purpose to represent its owners' social status. The lecturer, on the other hand, mentions that some carved stones were made with patterns while some were just simple. Moreover, if the carved stones were to indicate the social status of their owner, it should be buried with their owners when they died. But none of evidence show that carved stones were buried with their owners. Therefore, the speaker disagrees this argument.
To sum up, the author and the professor hold conflicting views on this topic.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 243, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n pieces if they were used for fighting, The carved stones found in Scotland are ...
^^
Line 5, column 75, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...eves that the carved stones were used as primitive standard for weights and measu...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, but, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, whereas, while, in addition, such as, as a result, 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: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1500.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 296.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06756756757 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14784890444 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.31763651304 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.52027027027 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 445.5 419.366225166 106% => 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: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.4634819844 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.2352941176 110.228320801 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4117647059 21.698381199 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.8823529412 7.06452816374 154% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.24605338514 0.272083759551 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0809446113881 0.0996497079465 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0692281363672 0.0662205650399 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12735372112 0.162205337803 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0722553889292 0.0443174109184 163% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.83 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.