The coin is real or fake.
Both the reading and the lecture is about the reality of a coin found at an archeological site in Maine. The writer states that some archeologists believe that the coin is fake and provides three reasons to endorse its idea. However, the professor explains that the coin is real and gainsays each of the reasons mentioned in the reading.
First of all, the passage begins by asserting the great distance between two archeological sites. The coin was found in North America while the Norse settled in eastern Canada. Due to a huge location difference, it is not evident that the coin has any connection with the settlement. In contrast, the professor exerts that many other objects were found with the coin in Maine which belonged to native Americans. It shows that they traveled a great distance at that time, therefore they found the coin and brought it to Maine with them.
Next, the professor further delves into details that Norse did not settle permanently in America and went back to Europe. They would have brought the silver coin with themselves and have taken it back along with their other stuff. These claims refute the writer's implication about the absence of further coins at the archeological site, and that the Norse did not bring any silver coins to North America.
Ultimately, the article wraps its argument by declaring that the Norse knew that the silver coins cannot be used as money in America, so, they did not bring them. On the other hand, the professor rebuts this reason by showing the inaccuracy of the author that these coins are valuable to Americans. Since the Norse knew it, they could have used them for trade prupose.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 255, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...ir other stuff. These claims refute the writers implication about the absence of furthe...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, so, therefore, while, in contrast, first of all, on the other hand
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 : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1370.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 284.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 4.82394366197 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.39347539353 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 145.348785872 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521126760563 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 422.1 419.366225166 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 27.072465114 49.2860985944 55% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 97.8571428571 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2857142857 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5 7.06452816374 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.275137978777 0.272083759551 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0918704296705 0.0996497079465 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0673448659942 0.0662205650399 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168792354382 0.162205337803 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0979175056375 0.0443174109184 221% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.2367328918 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.69 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.