Essay topics: The United Kingdom (sometimes referred to as Britain) has a long and rich history of human settlement. Traces of buildings, tools, and art can be found from periods going back many thousands of years: from the Stone Age, through the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, the time of the Roman colonization, the Middle Ages, up to the beginnings of the industrial age. Yet for most of the twentieth century, the science of archaeology,dedicated to uncovering and studying old cultural artifacts,was faced with serious problems and limitations in Britain.
First, many valuable artifacts were lost to construction projects. The growth of Britain's population, especially from the 1950s on, spurred a lot of new construction in British cities, towns, and villages. While digging foundations for new buildings, the builders often uncovered archaeologically valuable sites.Usually, however, they proceeded with the construction and did not preserve the artifacts. Many archaeologically precious artifacts were therefore destroyed.
-Second, many archaeologists felt that the financial support for archaeological research was inadequate. For most of the twentieth century, archaeology was funded mostly through government funds and grants, which allowed archaeologists to investigate a handful of the most important sites but which left hundreds of other interesting projects without support. Furthermore, changing government priorities brought about periodic reductions in funding.
-Third, it was difficult to have a career in archaeology. Archaeology jobs were to be found at universities or with a few government agencies, but there were never many positions available. Many people who wanted to become archaeologists ended up pursuing other careers and contributing to archaeological research only as unpaid amateurs.
The article and the lecture are both about archaeology problems and new guidelines for archaeologists. The author of reading feels that archaeology dedicated to uncovering and studing is faced many problems and limitations. The lecturer challenges the claims made by author. The lecturer thinks that new guide lines help to sort out their problems in archaeology.
First of all, the author argues that many valuble artifacts were lost to construction projects. The article is mentioned that there are no proceeded with the construction and did not preserve the artifacts.This point is challenged by the lecturer.He claims that before start construction in any project archaeologists have to examing in that area. He says that if that area want to preseve the artifacts, archaeologists have permistion to preseve the artfacts.
Secondly, the author sugeests that many archaeologists elt the finatinal support for their resaech was inadequate. Futhermore, the article notes that goverment reducing funds who providing to archaeologists to do resaechs. The lecturer rebuts this argument. He suggests that archaeologist have to work with many companies who are doing constructions. He illobarates on this by mentioning that construction cmpanies have to pay good rates for preservation done by archaeologists.
Finally, the author states that it was difficult to have a career in archaeology. Moreover, the article says that they have to find jobs in only universities. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that archaeologists get lots of paid for their works. He notes that they have many type of jobs such as , as examiners, presevation of plans, progress the reports.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 225, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...is faced many problems and limitations. The lecturer challenges the claims made by ...
^^^
Line 1, column 276, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...r challenges the claims made by author. The lecturer thinks that new guide lines he...
^^^
Line 3, column 137, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'noes', 'nos'?
Suggestion: noes; nos
...The article is mentioned that there are no proceeded with the construction and did...
^^
Line 3, column 207, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: This
...tion and did not preserve the artifacts.This point is challenged by the lecturer.He ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 248, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: He
...his point is challenged by the lecturer.He claims that before start construction i...
^^
Line 5, column 41, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'archaeologists'' or 'archaeologist's'?
Suggestion: archaeologists'; archaeologist's
...Secondly, the author sugeests that many archaeologists elt the finatinal support for their res...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 277, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun type seems to be countable; consider using: 'many types'.
Suggestion: many types
...or their works. He notes that they have many type of jobs such as , as examiners, preseva...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 302, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...that they have many type of jobs such as , as examiners, presevation of plans, pro...
^^
Line 7, column 363, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...evation of plans, progress the reports.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, in contrast, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1419.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 258.0 270.72406181 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.5 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00778971557 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.30061861966 2.5805825403 128% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550387596899 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 424.8 419.366225166 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.9567500494 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.6875 110.228320801 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.125 21.698381199 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.6875 7.06452816374 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 4.19205298013 215% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.0222355187492 0.272083759551 8% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.00827484928415 0.0996497079465 8% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0122895380479 0.0662205650399 19% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0142833232376 0.162205337803 9% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0039423829164 0.0443174109184 9% => 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: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.32 12.2367328918 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.84 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.