Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they challenge specific points made in the reading passage.
In 1957 a European silver coin dating to the eleventh century was discovered at a Native American archaeological site in the state of Maine in the United States. Many people believed the coin had been originally brought to North America by European explorers known as the Norse, who traveled across the Atlantic Ocean and came into contact with Native Americans almost a thousand years ago. However, some archaeologists believe that the coin is not a genuine piece of historical evidence but a historical fake; they think that the coin was placed at the site recently by someone who wanted to mislead the public. There are three main reasons why some archaeologists believe that the coin is not genuine historical evidence. Great Distance from Norse Settlements First, the Native American site in Maine where the coin was discovered is located very far from other sites documenting a Norse presence in North America. Remains of Norse settlements have been discovered in far eastern Canada. The distance between the Maine site and the Norse settlements in Canada is more than a thousand kilometers, suggesting the coin has no real connection with the settlements. No Other Coins Found A second problem is that no other coins have been found at the Canadian sites that were inhabited by the Norse. This suggests that the Norse did not bring any silver coins with them to their North American settlements. Third, the Norse who traveled to North America would have understood that silver coins would most likely be useless to them. Silver coins may have been in wide use in Europe at the time, but the Norse, as experienced explorers, would have known that native North Americans did not recognize silver coins as money.
The lecturer presented the viewpoint that the silver coin discovered at the Native American archaeological site is in fact authentic. This viewpoint is also supported by many contemporary archaeologists, said the professor. Each point mentioned in the passage casting doubt on the authenticity of the coin was discussed and countered in the lecture.
First, the speaker pointed out that the distance of the place the coin was found from the Norse settlements is possible. Other objects from afar, for example, are also found in the Native American site in Maine, not just the coin. Furthermore, Native Americans were willing to travel long distances to acquire rare objects.
After refuting the first point in the passage, the lecturer mentions a possible explanation of why no silver coins were found in the Norse settlements. The Norse were not permenant dwellers of the American continent; therefore, they could have brought the silver coins with them, traded some the the Native Americans, and then returned to Europe with the coins they have brought. This annuls the claim in the passage the Norse never brought any silver coins.
Finally, it is argued in the lecture how silver coins may not be completely useless in North America. Although the Native Americans may not view these silver objects as money, they might accept it as good decoration. If Native Americans view these silver coins to be beautiful, they might use them as necklaces or other types of decoration.
All in all, the points made in the lecture presents a viewpoint contrary to that of the passage. By explaining how it challenges in the reading is in fact possible, the lecturer made the point that the silver coin may in fact be authentic.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 293, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...the silver coins with them, traded some the the Native Americans, and then returned to ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 293, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...the silver coins with them, traded some the the Native Americans, and then returned to ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, furthermore, if, may, so, then, therefore, well, for example, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 12.0772626932 33% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1445.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 285.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0701754386 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6988911691 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 145.348785872 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.505263157895 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 445.5 419.366225166 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.5280860441 49.2860985944 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.214285714 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3571428571 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5 7.06452816374 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.351218711468 0.272083759551 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.122125198626 0.0996497079465 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0742265689314 0.0662205650399 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.196193531614 0.162205337803 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0620094671805 0.0443174109184 140% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.