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.
The reading excerpt states that there several theories about the purposes that carved stone balls were used for, the author provides three reasons for support. However, the lecture's audio claims that there are a lot of problems with the author theories and he refutes each reason.
First, the article avers that the carved stone balls were weapons used in hunting or fighting. In contrast, the professor opposes this point by saying that this is not convincing because the weapons such as the arrows or the hand axis have a sign of wear. Thus, if these balls were used for fighting, they should have some signs. However, the balls have cracks or some broken pieces, but, they are well preserved with little or no wear. Consequently, this idea cannot champion the author's statement.
Second, the passage posits that the carved stone balls were used as a part of a primitive system of weight and measures because they are so nearly uniform in size. On the other hand, the lecturer contradicts this outlook and explains that even these balls are uniform in size, but, they are different in their density because they are made from different type of stones such as sand stone, Therefore, they could not be used for measuring. So, this theory cannot support the author's belief.
Third, the excerpt mentions that the carved stone balls served a social purpose as opposed to a practical or utilitarian one because they have elaborate designs. In contrary, the speaker argues this theory by stating that the facts are inconsistent with this theory because the elaborate designs are simple to be used for a status. In addition, if the were used for this purpose, so, they must be found with their owners, while, there is no evidence of any of these balls with the highly racking persons in the tomb or the graves. Thus, this point of view is definitely wrong.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 174, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lectures'' or 'lecture's'?
Suggestion: lectures'; lecture's
...three reasons for support. However, the lectures audio claims that there are a lot of pr...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 483, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...equently, this idea cannot champion the authors statement. Second, the passage pos...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 149, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: uniform
...and measures because they are so nearly uniform in size. On the other hand, the lecturer contra...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 262, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: uniform
... and explains that even these balls are uniform in size, but, they are different in their densi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 476, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ing. So, this theory cannot support the authors belief. Third, the excerpt mentions ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 451, Rule ID: OF_ANY_OF[1]
Message: Consider simply using 'of' instead.
Suggestion: of
...eir owners, while, there is no evidence of any of these balls with the highly racking per...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, however, if, look, second, so, therefore, third, thus, well, while, in addition, in contrast, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => 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: 1542.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 318.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 4.84905660377 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22286093782 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.25335476336 2.5805825403 87% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.506289308176 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 473.4 419.366225166 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.1794637665 49.2860985944 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.142857143 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7142857143 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.4285714286 7.06452816374 148% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.228651029198 0.272083759551 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0836732620289 0.0996497079465 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0813596532462 0.0662205650399 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151794199763 0.162205337803 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0631431328289 0.0443174109184 142% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => 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: 11.15 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => 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?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.