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 balls 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.
Recently, there has been a ton of debate among archaeologists on the different use cases of carved stone balls. More specifically, in regard to the passage, the writer puts forth the idea that they could be used as hunting weapons, a tool for mesuring the weights or to use as a badge. In the listening passage, the lecturer is quick to point out that there are some serious flaws in the writer's claims. In fact, the professor believes the ideas behind each of the use cases are not convincing and addresses, in detail, the trouble with each point made in the reading text.
First and foremost, the author of the article states carved stone balls were weapons and holding the stone balls at the end of the cord would have allowed a person to swing it around or throw it. Some professionals in the same field, however, stand in firm opposition to this claim. In the listening, for instance, the professor states the hunting tools should contain sign of wares on them in order to be useful for hunting. besides, not only the carved stone balls do not contain any sign of crack or damage on them but also, most of them are very surface preserved.
One group of scholars, represented by the writer, thinks carved stone ballas were used as part of a primitive system of weights and measures. Of course, though, not all the experts in the field believes this is accurate. Again, the speaker specifically addresses this point when she points out carved stone balls made by different types of materials. Although, they are mostly in the same sizes but, they have different masses because of their source materials differences in density. So, they can not be used as the measuring tools.
Finally, the author brings his argument to close by suggesting the theory of the use case in which stone balls were used as social badges. Not surprisingly, the lecturer take issue with this claim by contending that their carved patterns were so sipmle in order to show a specific social class. Besides, there are signs that ancient citizens usually buried their people with their badges but, carved stone balls were not found in the discovered graves.
To sum up, both the essayist and the professor hold conflicting views about the carved stone balls purpose and meaning. It is clear that they will have trouble finding common ground on this issue.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 62, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...een a ton of debate among archaeologists on the different use cases of carved sto...
^^
Line 3, column 427, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Besides
...them in order to be useful for hunting. besides, not only the carved stone balls do not...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, finally, first, however, if, so, for instance, in fact, of course, in regard to, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 30.3222958057 191% => 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: 1938.0 1373.03311258 141% => OK
No of words: 405.0 270.72406181 150% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.78518518519 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48604634366 4.04702891845 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.40205926998 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 145.348785872 147% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.525925925926 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 585.9 419.366225166 140% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.724197291 49.2860985944 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.666666667 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.11111111111 7.06452816374 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.238679765847 0.272083759551 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0730877733002 0.0996497079465 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0542810783128 0.0662205650399 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138447226354 0.162205337803 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0474051974705 0.0443174109184 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 66.07 53.8541721854 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.8 12.2367328918 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 63.6247240618 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => 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: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.