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 had 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 us. Marry 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 sued 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 deals with the purpose and meaning of carved stone balls. The professor's lecture focuses on the same issue. Yet, she respectively contradicts what the reading states. And in the lecture, she reveals three pieces of evidence to buttress her view.
To start with, even though the reading passage suggests that the stone balls could be used as weapons because of the holes and grooves on their surface, the professor in the lecture argues that the stone balls did not show signs of use. This is because all the balls are well-preserved, which means evidently, the professor's argument disproves its counterpart in the reading.
Further, contrary to the statement in the reading that the stone balls were applied as part of a primitive weighing system due to their uniform size, the professor contends that their masses vary too considerably from each other. Then, she supports this point with the fact that there were many different types stone balls with different density. In other words, the stone balls could not be used as a part of weighing system.
Lastly the professor asserts that the balls could not be social markers whereas the author of the reading claims that the stones may serve as a social purpose. The professor verifies that this claim is indefensible by pointing out that the stone balls not only decorated with elaborate patterns, but also simple ones. In addition, none of the balls were found in the graves or tombs.
In sum, the professor exactly determines the flaws in the reading passage and compellingly proves that the arguments in the reading are all unconvincing.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 315, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...l-preserved, which means evidently, the professors argument disproves its counterpart in t...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 291, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'many'.
Suggestion: many
...his point with the fact that there were many different types stone balls with different densit...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, lastly, may, so, then, well, whereas, in addition, in other words, to start with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1356.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 269.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04089219331 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0498419064 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50710354649 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.531598513011 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 401.4 419.366225166 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.9814567006 49.2860985944 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.307692308 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6923076923 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.30769230769 7.06452816374 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
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: 0.236224291711 0.272083759551 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0853518171016 0.0996497079465 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.058353231924 0.0662205650399 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131496689136 0.162205337803 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0493451890244 0.0443174109184 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.