Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on specific points made in the reading passage.
The United Kingdom (Sometime referred to as Britain) has a long and rich history of human settlement. Traces of buildings, tools, and art can be found from periods going back many thousands of years: from the Stone Age, through the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, the time of the Roman colonization, the Middle Ages, up to the beginnings of the industrial age. Yet for most of the twentieth century, the science of archaeology—dedicated to uncovering and studying old cultural artifacts—was faced with serious problems and limitations in Britain.
First, many valuable artifacts were lost to construction projects. The growth of Britain’s population, especially from the 1950s on, spurred a lot of new construction in British cities, towns, and villages. While digging foundations for new buildings, the builders often uncovered archaeologically valuable sites. Usually, however, they proceeded with the construction and did not preserve the artifacts. Many archaeologically precious artifacts were therefore destroyed.
Second, many archaeologists felt that the financial support for archaeological research was inadequate. For most of the twentieth century, archaeology was funded mostly through government funds and grants, which allowed archaeologists to investigate a handful of the most important sites but which left hundreds of other interesting projects without support. Furthermore, changing government priorities brought about periodic reduction in funding.
Third, it was difficult to have a career in archaeology. Archaeology jobs were to be found at universities or with a few government agencies, but there were never many positions available. Many people who wanted to become archaeologists ended up pursuing other careers and contributing to archaeological research only as unpaid amateurs.
The reading and the lecture are both about the serious problems and limitations that faced the science of archaeology in twentieth century in Britain.
The professor in the lecture does not agree with the three reasons that provided by the lecture about the problems and limitations that faced the archaeologists. Therefore, The professor tries to persuade her class that in 1990 the new guide lines and roles have improved the situation in all three areas.
First, Regarding valuable artifacts, the professor asserts that before any construction process, the construction area examined by archaeologists. So, if the site of construction is with a value, the archaeologists put plan with the government to build around the area or documentary the place. This point directly contradicts the point from the reading which states that many valuable artifacts were lost due to construction projects.
Second, according to financial support for archaeologist, thee speaker avers that any construction work be paid by the construction company. Furthermore, the construction companies pay for initial exam and all work carried out. This funding helped archaeologists to study the sites. Again this point refutes the point from the passage which claims that financial support for archaeological research was inadequate.
Third, regarding the difficulty to have a career in archaeology, the professor argues that the work was paid for archaeologists which was not available before. He says that experienced archaeologists were hired to observe plans like exam site, observe plan and process data. As a result, the number of proficient archaeologists increased.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, if, regarding, second, so, therefore, third, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1411.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 252.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.59920634921 5.08290768461 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98428260373 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.18022072424 2.5805825403 123% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 145.348785872 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.547619047619 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 414.0 419.366225166 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.3430311269 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.538461538 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3846153846 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.84615384615 7.06452816374 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0588128731042 0.272083759551 22% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0212568412902 0.0996497079465 21% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0374002100068 0.0662205650399 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0327301880247 0.162205337803 20% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0267878577376 0.0443174109184 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.2 12.2367328918 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.97 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.