The reading material and the lecture are discussing the origin of the grooves in the Mediterranean island of Malta. The professor in the lecture thinks that the three explanations presented in the reading material are not convincing.
Firstly, according to the reading material, one potential explaination of the grooves is for irrigation channels to carry water. However, the professor states that the irrigation channels should be built to let the water from the lake flow down to the lowland areas. But the grooves in Malta go uphill and downhill, which is a problem for transporting water.
Secondly, the reading passage proposes the idea that the grooves were made by wheeled vehicles and since the rock in Malta consists of soft limestone, the grooves are much deeper compared to other locations around the world. In contrast, the professor claims that this explanation is not complete. In ancient times, people would use animals, such as horses, to pull their vehicles. If the rock is soft, there should be many traces made by animal hoops left in the limestone as well. However, there is no evidence of the existence of such marks. By casting doubt on an important piece of the evidence in the reading material, the lecturer contradicts the second claims in the reading.
Last, the grooves may have been created for astronomical observation. The professor disagrees with it. If it was used for an astronomical purpose, the lines should be straight and each line should point into a direction, whereas, the groove in Malta is not straight and doesn't change directions and orientations to the Sun and planets.
To sum up, the three reasons presented in the reading material for explaining the origin of the grooves are jeopardized by the lecturer.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 271, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...the groove in Malta is not straight and doesnt change directions and orientations to t...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, well, whereas, in contrast, such as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 8.0 22.412803532 36% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1476.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 290.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08965517241 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12666770723 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74656850007 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.531034482759 0.540411800872 98% => 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: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.4074485026 49.2860985944 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.4 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3333333333 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.13333333333 7.06452816374 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0192617477936 0.272083759551 7% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.00948685771468 0.0996497079465 10% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0206557231143 0.0662205650399 31% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.00906311189971 0.162205337803 6% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0111432845997 0.0443174109184 25% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.