the set of 2200 years old clay jars which proposed to be ancient electric batteries
The reading discusses that the set of 2200 years old clay jars which proposed to be ancient electric batteries, actually were not used as batteries in ancient times and provides three reasons for it. The professor, in the contrast, states that those vessels might be used as batteries and discussion of reading is inconceivable. She denies each reason of passage.
First, the passage says that the no evidence exists to show wires locating near the vessels. So, it suggests that vessels didn't use as batteries because they had to attach to wires. The lecture denies this by mentioning that even though the archaeologist didn't recognize any metal wire; but such a metal wire identified by local people, those didn't know about the importance of their foundation.
Second, according to reading cylinders inside the jars were exactly similar to those discovered copper cylinders in Seleucia. Because the ones of Seleucia used as holding scrolls of sacred texts, the ancient vessels in Iraq probably had the same usage. The professor refutes this too by stating that it is possible that at the first they used in the same way but after a while ancient people noticed to electricity producing of them and started using them in another way.
Third, the passage talks about that there were not any ancient device relating to electricity, so accordingly they were not at the using of batteries. The professor disagrees with this and states that it was easy to experience the shock of electricity of those vessels by touching them. The ancient people were able to use those magical powers produced by such a vessel to heal things or get rid of paints.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 122, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...e vessels. So, it suggests that vessels didnt use as batteries because they had to at...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 255, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...ning that even though the archaeologist didnt recognize any metal wire; but such a me...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 343, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... wire identified by local people, those didnt know about the importance of their foun...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, actually, but, first, if, second, so, third, while, in the same way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1370.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 277.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94584837545 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07962216107 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54851145958 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.563176895307 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 430.2 419.366225166 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.6679435326 49.2860985944 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.166666667 110.228320801 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0833333333 21.698381199 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.66666666667 7.06452816374 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.233896583434 0.272083759551 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.082265103221 0.0996497079465 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.159059196676 0.0662205650399 240% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.152559946685 0.162205337803 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.176431698903 0.0443174109184 398% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.73 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.