The Plain of Jars is an archaeological site in the Southeast Asian country of Laos. At the site, hundreds of large stone jars, ranging in size from one to three meters, are scattered across the countryside. These numerous large containers are around 2,000 years old. The original purpose of the jars is unknown, but archaeologists have several theories.
First, the jars may have been used for fermentation. In fermentation, food or drink is left in a sealed container in order to undergo a chemical change. According to some local residents, the jars were originally constructed by a king in order to ferment a special beverage to celebrate a great victory. It would be possible to use the jars for fermentation, so the local people's story could be true.
Second, the jars may have been used for water storage. Laos experiences rainy and dry seasons, and finding water during the dry seasons can be difficult. The Plain of Jars is located near ancient trade routes, where traveling traders may have needed drinking water. The jars could have been constructed to collect water during the rainy season so that traders passing through the area would have a source of drinking water during the dry season.
Third, it is possible that the Plain of Jars was an ancient burial site, and the jars were tombs (places where human remains are deposited). Much of the contents of the ancient jars is now gone, but they are large enough to hold human remains. Furthermore, artifacts such as metal tools, jewelry, and glass beads have been found in some of the jars. Burying the dead alongside valuable artifacts was a common practice in ancient cultures. Ancient people may have buried their dead in the jars along with the artifacts.
The reading passage proposes several possible uses of jars discovered on the plain of jars. However, the professor in the listening opposes this idea and points out the problems of each point made in the article.
First of all, the passage state that the jars are probably used for fermentation where a sealed container is often involved for chemical change to happen. It is further suggested that they are used by a king who wanted to produce a particular beverage for celebration. In contrast, the lecturer disagrees with the idea, claiming that although stone jars could be used for this purpose, ancient people preferred clay pots for fermentation, which were less expensive and took less time to be made. Since the two containers could serve the same function, there was no reason to make stone jars.
Secondly, the reading suggests that because finding water during dry seasons in Laos could be difficult, the jars may have been served for storing water, which was then provided to passing traders. But the professor argues that the trade routes were located near rivers and streams, where water was always available. Hence, there was no need to gather water in such regions.
Finally, while the passage contends that artifacts like jewelry and glass beeds found in the jars indicate that the jars were used as tombs to preserve human remains, the lecturer rebuts that they could not be used this way because tombs need covers to protect the remains inside it, the fact that was greatly valued by ancient people.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, while, as to, in contrast, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1268.0 1373.03311258 92% => OK
No of words: 256.0 270.72406181 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.953125 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.32213995796 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.61328125 0.540411800872 113% => OK
syllable_count: 387.0 419.366225166 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => 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: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 77.8912061789 49.2860985944 158% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.8 110.228320801 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6 21.698381199 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.3 7.06452816374 160% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0825949752967 0.272083759551 30% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0336933493147 0.0996497079465 34% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.029633698892 0.0662205650399 45% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0507362271881 0.162205337803 31% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0126491321967 0.0443174109184 29% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.3589403974 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.73 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.