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 lecture and the reading passage are both about the actual purpose and the meaning of carved stone balls, as a curious type of artifact discovered at a number of locations in Scotland. Whereas the author provides three theories about their application, providing several reasons of support, the lecturer believes otherwise, repudiating every single point made by author.
First, although the reading passage claims that the stone ball were used as weapon in hunting of fighting, the lecturer counters the argument by asserting that since the surface of the balls had no damage signs, this is in counters with the authenticity that all the weapons, like arrows, at that time showed the signs of ware.
Second, while the reading passage mentions that they were used as part of rudimentary system of weight and measures due to their uniform size, the lecturer believes that although their sizee were similar, they could have had different weight. According to her, they comprised of different type of stones so their densitiy were different which leads to having different mass.
Finally in contrast to the reading passage which holds that they might have been used as marker for social status, the lecturer states that since the Neolithic period were buried with their position mark, they should have found in their graves, but none of them found there.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...hich leads to having different mass. Finally in contrast to the reading passage whic...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 128, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s marker for social status, the lecturer states that since the Neolithic period w...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, second, so, then, whereas, while, in contrast, in contrast to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => 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: 1144.0 1373.03311258 83% => OK
No of words: 222.0 270.72406181 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.15315315315 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.8600083453 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.33481117762 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 130.0 145.348785872 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.585585585586 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 342.9 419.366225166 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 6.0 13.0662251656 46% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 37.0 21.2450331126 174% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 64.6419626352 49.2860985944 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 190.666666667 110.228320801 173% => OK
Words per sentence: 37.0 21.698381199 171% => OK
Discourse Markers: 14.3333333333 7.06452816374 203% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => 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 : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More 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: 0.248205086273 0.272083759551 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126929934095 0.0996497079465 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0776340197722 0.0662205650399 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.137705034905 0.162205337803 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0412708465148 0.0443174109184 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 21.3 13.3589403974 159% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.38 53.8541721854 79% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.5 11.0289183223 150% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.31 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 63.6247240618 85% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 10.7273730684 168% => OK
gunning_fog: 16.8 10.498013245 160% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 11.2008830022 152% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.