The Mediterranean island of Malta is home to a puzzling archaeological site that consists of a collection of pairs of parallel lines, or grooves, carved into the rock of the ground. These grooves, thought to be at least a few thousand years old, can be quite long, and they seem to connect various locations on the island. There are several theories that attempt to explain the origin of the grooves.
One theory suggests that the grooves were carved as irrigation channels to carry water. Ancient societies, like those on Malta, depended heavily on agriculture, and agriculture requires having enough water for crops to grow. The grooves are large enough to carry a significant volume of water, and given that Malta has limited freshwater resources, it may be that the grooves served the purpose of irrigation.
Another view is that the grooves were made by wheeled vehicles, such as carts used to transport objects. If carts traveled over the same path repeatedly, their wheels could have created noticeable grooves in the rock. Similar-looking tracks have been found at other locations around the world, but the Maltese grooves stand out because they are much deeper. This may be because the rock in Malta consists mostly of soft limestone, which can easily be worn away, especially when wet. Given the softness of the Maltese limestone, it is possible that carts left the deep grooves.
Finally, the Maltese grooves may have been created to serve some astronomical purpose. Many ancient cultures closely studied the planets and stars, and some of those cultures carved marks or grooves into rock that appear to have been used to make astronomical observations. Some ancient stone grooves found elsewhere in Europe have been shown to have connections to the movements of the Sun and planets. So the Maltese grooves may also have been made by ancient astronomers who used them to predict the locations of the Sun and planets.
The reading passage states some theoretical concepts to explain the origin of the grooves found in Malta. However, the professor in the listening states, why the assumptions mentioned in the reading passage are incorrect and refutes tham by describing three reasons as follows.
Firstly, the reading posits that grooves may have been carved for irrigational purposes. Since Malta endows with limited fresh water resources, useing grooves as irrigation channels seems logical. The professor casts doubt on this point by mentioning that usually irrigation channels are built downward from the lakes or streams but, grooves in Malta are carved both in downhill and uphill ways. Therefore, water can't get far in some routes because of the force of gravity.
Secondly, the reading cliams that since the limstone in Malta is soft, the grooves can be the result of the wheeled vehicles' marks. In contrast, the professor says that this assumption is not complete because the vehicles were being used by people or animmals in those days, accordingly, there should be some marks of animal or human footprint on the ground.
Finally, the reading says that the grooves were carved for some astronomical purposes like the other grooves found in various parts of Europe. The professor opposes this point by explaining that all other grooves that have been carved to illustrate astronomical incidents in Europe are carved in stright directions. However, the grooves in Malta change direction continuously, and they can not be allocated for a specific astronomical reason.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 414, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...nhill and uphill ways. Therefore, water cant get far in some routes because of the f...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 22.412803532 54% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1313.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 247.0 270.72406181 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31578947368 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96437052324 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63656332697 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.554655870445 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 399.6 419.366225166 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.7337393699 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.363636364 110.228320801 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4545454545 21.698381199 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.54545454545 7.06452816374 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => 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: 0.205760466941 0.272083759551 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0855503581714 0.0996497079465 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0498270865162 0.0662205650399 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125855731043 0.162205337803 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0512051482061 0.0443174109184 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.95 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.