None of the three theories presented in the reading passage are very convincing.
First, the stone balls as hunting weapons, common Neolithic weapons such as arrowheads and hand axes generally show signs of wear, so we should expect that if the stone balls had been used as weapons for hunting of fighting, they too would show signs of that use. Many of the stone balls would be cracked or have pieces broken off. However, the surfaces of the balls are generally well preserved, showing little or no wear or damage.
Second, the carved stone balls maybe remarkably uniform in size, but their masses vary too considerably to have been used as uniform weights. This is because the stone balls were made of different types of stone including sandstone, green stone and quartzite. Each type of stone has a different density. Some types of stone are heavier than others just as a handful of feathers weighs less than a handful of rocks. Two balls of the same size are different weights depending on the type of stone they are made of. Therefore, the balls could not have been used as a primitive weighing system.
Third, it's unlikely that the main purpose of the balls was as some kind of social marker. A couple of facts are inconsistent with this theory. For one thing, while some of the balls are carved with intricate patterns, many others have markings that are extremely simple, too simple to make the balls look like status symbols. Furthermore, we know that in Neolithic Britain, when someone died, particularly a high-ranking person, they were usually buried with their possessions. However, none of the carved stone balls have been actually found in tombs or graves. That makes it unlikely that the balls were personal possessions that marked a person's status within the community.
The reading passage explores the topic of intention of carved stone ball. The professor’s lecture deals with the same topic. However she thinks that the three theories are not convincing, which contradicts what the reading states. And in the lecture, she use three specific points to support her idea.
First of all, even though the reading passage suggests that ancient people use carved stone ball as a weapon, the professor argue in the lecture that stone ball is impossible to use in hunting or fighting. This is because some weapons such like arrow head will be cracked through the intensely use, but the stone ball not only did not break in to pieces, also found in generally well preserved.
Moreover, despite the statement in the reading that carved stone ball was a measuring system, the professor contends that the stone ball size was not uniform in size. Then she supports this point with the fact that the substance of stone ball make with different type of stones. In other words, she said that each type of stone has different dense and weight. Thus, the stone ball is absolutely impossible a weighting system. .
Finally, the professor asserts that the stone ball was not for social marking whereas the author of the reading claims that it was symbolize a high racking people. The professor proves that this claim is indefensible by pointing out that some status of their owners will buried with their possessions after they died, but the stone ball did not found in their tunes or graves. .
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 131, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...os;s lecture deals with the same topic. However she thinks that the three theories are ...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 261, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'she' must be used with a third-person verb: 'uses'.
Suggestion: uses
...reading states. And in the lecture, she use three specific points to support her id...
^^^
Line 4, column 396, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...also found in generally well preserved. Moreover, despite the statement in the r...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 151, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: uniform
...ntends that the stone ball size was not uniform in size. Then she supports this point with the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 427, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...solutely impossible a weighting system. . Finally, the professor asserts th...
^^^
Line 6, column 429, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...lutely impossible a weighting system. . Finally, the professor asserts tha...
^^
Line 9, column 132, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'symbolized'.
Suggestion: symbolized
...uthor of the reading claims that it was symbolize a high racking people. The professor pr...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 272, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'bury'
Suggestion: bury
...t that some status of their owners will buried with their possessions after they died,...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 378, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...did not found in their tunes or graves. .
^^^
Line 9, column 380, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...d not found in their tunes or graves. .
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, so, then, thus, well, whereas, in general, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1268.0 1373.03311258 92% => OK
No of words: 257.0 270.72406181 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.93385214008 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00390054096 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.39141116574 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 141.0 145.348785872 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548638132296 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 372.6 419.366225166 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.2056615377 49.2860985944 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.666666667 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4166666667 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.0833333333 7.06452816374 143% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 4.19205298013 239% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.30079174839 0.272083759551 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.119837665123 0.0996497079465 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0751493433879 0.0662205650399 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.188945697658 0.162205337803 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0553280281641 0.0443174109184 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 67.08 53.8541721854 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.