Egyptian pyramids
In this set of material, the reading and lecture is both about Ancient egyptians pyramids construction, The writer strongly postulates that the transport of enormous sized rocks for building was possible in past, and endorses it's idea by proposing three theories. On the other hand, the speaker contradicts each theory saying that there are critical weaknesses associated with them, and gainsays each of them.
First and foremost, the writer begins by asserting that construction ramps were used for lifting the heavy stones since they make inclination easy and tranportation without strenous efforts. He examplify with starigh, spiraling and zigzag ramps. The lecturer dismisse the points by stating that this solution would be too burdensome for ancient egypts. To be more specific, problem with the straigh ramp wasthat they had required more floor area and ramps were needed to be adjusted frequently, with zigzag ramps problem could be safety and difficulty too. Therfore ancient egyptians could not used such ineeficient methods.hypothsis is falsified as a result.
Furthermore, in article another hypothesis was proposed by architect using 3-D comuterzed simulation. To begin with he stated that spiraling ramps that are accompained with notches were usred to deliver construction material in pyramids. Ther lecturer refutes these claims by mentioning that there is no archeological proof for that. ON top 3-D simulation does not mean that results are valid. It is impossible to dig the pyramids and see the validity of this theory.Therefore, this hypothesid is failed too.
Lastly, the article wraps its arguments by declaring that limestone concretes were used to mold whole pyramid. He claimed that limestone sand mud were mixed together and then wooden molds were used to bulid block and pyramids were dried simultaneously. Not surprisingly, the lecturer takes an issue with that by contending that this hypothese could not answer many question. First, how faces of pyramids were met exactly at same point by this method. Second, how blocks were made flat and were of uniform size. this could not even possible today.ts impossible.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 205, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the past'?
Suggestion: in the past
...s sized rocks for building was possible in past, and endorses its idea by proposing thr...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 507, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'ramps'' or 'ramp's'?
Suggestion: ramps'; ramp's
... to be adjusted frequently, with zigzag ramps problem could be safety and difficulty ...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 594, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'use'
Suggestion: use
...o. Therfore ancient egyptians could not used such ineeficient methods.hypothsis is f...
^^^^
Line 3, column 467, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Therefore
...ids and see the validity of this theory.Therefore, this hypothesid is failed too. Lastly...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 360, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun question seems to be countable; consider using: 'many questions'.
Suggestion: many questions
...ng that this hypothese could not answer many question. First, how faces of pyramids were met ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 511, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...ere made flat and were of uniform size. this could not even possible today.ts imposs...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, if, lastly, second, so, then, therefore, as a result, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 10.4613686534 229% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1811.0 1373.03311258 132% => OK
No of words: 335.0 270.72406181 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.40597014925 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27820116611 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85550123096 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 145.348785872 141% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.611940298507 0.540411800872 113% => OK
syllable_count: 548.1 419.366225166 131% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => 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: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 54.7498238342 49.2860985944 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.611111111 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6111111111 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.88888888889 7.06452816374 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.144783521157 0.272083759551 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0417323789828 0.0996497079465 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.061879527408 0.0662205650399 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0858185442094 0.162205337803 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0438639700132 0.0443174109184 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.34 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 63.6247240618 160% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.