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 passage discusses the grooves found in The Mediterranean island of Malta and puts forward several theories for their porpuses, However, the lecture casts doubt on all of them by presenting some rational counterarguments.
First and foremost, the article asserts that the grooves were used as channels for irrigation because the Malta people had limited access to fresh water to irrigate their farmlands. On the other hand, the professor points out that usually water channels are established to flow down from lakes whereas the found grooves in some areas are created in uphills where gravity enables them to carry any water. Therefore, were not the grooves for irrigation.
Secondly, the writer contends that grooves were exploited for transportation using crafts because of the trace of vehicles. The speaker, conversely, calls this contention into question, He states that in ancient times crafts were pulled by animals such as horses with hard hooves, though, there was no trace of animals on the soft milestones.
Last but not least, the author claims that carved grooves into racks had astronomical purposes for locating the sun and other planets. On the contrary, the lecture clears out that grooves found in Europe were straight pointing in one direction but Malta grooves are craved randomly pointing differently; as such there is no connection if they had astronomical porpuses.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, whereas, such as, on the contrary, on the other hand
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 : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1175.0 1373.03311258 86% => OK
No of words: 221.0 270.72406181 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31674208145 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.85565412703 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71035058372 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 145.348785872 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.610859728507 0.540411800872 113% => OK
syllable_count: 356.4 419.366225166 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 13.0662251656 61% => 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: 27.0 21.2450331126 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 61.8582047913 49.2860985944 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.875 110.228320801 133% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.625 21.698381199 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 15.25 7.06452816374 216% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.140297636086 0.272083759551 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0687269701966 0.0996497079465 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0330339733131 0.0662205650399 50% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0872108656238 0.162205337803 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0347047066888 0.0443174109184 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 13.3589403974 130% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 53.8541721854 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.69 8.42419426049 115% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 10.7273730684 168% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.498013245 122% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.