the possible meaning and purpose of carved stone balls found in Scotland
Both the reading and the lecture discuss the possible meaning and purpose of carved stone balls found in Scotland, dated from the late Neolithic period. The author of the extract provides three theories for this mystery, nevertheless the professor denies each of the author's reasons.
First and foremost, according to the passage, those stones maybe were used as weapons in haunting or fighting. Nonetheless, the lecture offset this idea by declaring that those stone preserved inasmuch as any sign of damages like crack exist in the surface of them. This can strongly deny such a hypothesis because such a usage of stone, as weapons, must create some damages on the surface of stones.
The professor in the lecture further asserts that it is true that the those carved stone balls had equal size, roughly 70 mm, but they have not at all the same weight because of the vary stones exerted to build them. Different materials shaped in a single size cannot have same weight. This fact mentioned by the professor refutes the second theory mentioning by the author of the excerpt.
The text lasting insists that there is another theory for those stone balls; they could be unpractical stone and just served a social purpose. The most reason of the passage for such a declaration was that many stone had complex design. Nevertheless, the professor in the lecture counters this indication by asserting that there were some simple-designed stones in addition to the intricate ones. He also sees this claim inconceivable because of her following explanations; he states that in the Neolithic period many high rank people had died, so if those stone had such a social purpose had to use in graves of them to mark their status, but there were not any marked grave in those time.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 179, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...e not at all the same weight because of the vary stones exerted to build them. Different...
^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 279, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'weighted'.
Suggestion: weighted
...haped in a single size cannot have same weight. This fact mentioned by the professor r...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, so, in addition, all the same, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => 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: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => 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: 1476.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 300.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50475991309 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.57 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 459.9 419.366225166 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.1778414734 49.2860985944 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.0 110.228320801 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 21.698381199 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.58333333333 7.06452816374 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.247559146036 0.272083759551 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0913873240288 0.0996497079465 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.146258716977 0.0662205650399 221% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.162844243029 0.162205337803 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.122193025837 0.0443174109184 276% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.3589403974 106% => 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: 11.55 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.82 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.