integrated tpo 16
Both the reading and the lecture talk about the studying of old culture artifact in Britain. The reading stated that the studying of the artifacts were faced with many problems. However the lecture disagrees. It claims that by 1990 there were new rules and guide lines adopted to improve the situation mention in the article.
First, the reading states that there were lost of many artifacts. For example, because the growth of the Britain population, people tried to build more homes, while digging the foundation for the new building the artifacts were destroyed. However the lecture disagrees. It claims that before any construction done the area must be examined if there were any artifacts or not, and if they found artifacts the local government and the building company set a plan to preserve the artifact.
Second, the reading states that there was inadequate financial support. For example, archeologists were funded through the government. And there were many other interested projected put behind because there was not enough financial support from the government. But the lecture disagrees. It claims that all the construction work paid by the building company. For example, the building companies offer funding for more researches.
Third, the reading states that there were no archeological careers available. For example, only jobs were restricted to be found in universities or government agencies. Yet, the lecture disagrees. It claims that there were a lot of paid work. for example the building company hiring many employees for different stages throughout the process for example, many employees were needed to examine the sit; help drop the plan; and processing the data. Thus the numbers of proficient archeologists increase
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 147, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tated that the studying of the artifacts were faced with many problems. However t...
^^
Line 1, column 180, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...tifacts were faced with many problems. However the lecture disagrees. It claims that b...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 240, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
... building the artifacts were destroyed. However the lecture disagrees. It claims that b...
^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 229, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...sagrees. It claims that there were a lot of paid work. for example the building c...
^^
Line 10, column 245, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: For
...ms that there were a lot of paid work. for example the building company hiring man...
^^^
Line 10, column 320, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ring many employees for different stages throughout the process for example, many...
^^
Line 10, column 396, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
..., many employees were needed to examine the sit; help drop the plan; and processing the...
^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 450, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...drop the plan; and processing the data. Thus the numbers of proficient archeologists...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, second, third, thus, while, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1488.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 276.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.39130434783 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07593519647 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68782954096 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.503623188406 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 447.3 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 54.1149471034 49.2860985944 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 74.4 110.228320801 67% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.8 21.698381199 64% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.2 7.06452816374 45% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 4.19205298013 191% => 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: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.297151561302 0.272083759551 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0913926928243 0.0996497079465 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.06942427331 0.0662205650399 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.199895951423 0.162205337803 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0304595037619 0.0443174109184 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 13.3589403974 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.28 53.8541721854 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.39 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.2 10.498013245 69% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.