The article states that in Britain, archaeologists were faced with serious problems and limitations and provides three reasons to support. However, the professor explains that new rules have changed the field of archaeology and refutes each of the reasons.
First, the reading states that many artifacts were lost to construction projects. However, the professor refutes this point by stating that before starting the construction projects, they must examine for archaeological findings. And if they find something that related to archaeology, they must find a solution about how to preserve it. Archaeologists will decide whether it should preserve it by constructing a boundary wall or document the site before the construction starts.
Second, the article claims that many archaeologists felt that the financial support for archaeological research was inadequate. But, the professor refutes stating that the construction companies must pay for that excavation and excavation must be done by those construction companies before starting their work. In this way, the archaeologist will be supported by those construction companies and they will be employed.
Third, the reading averts that it was difficult to have a career in archaeology as jobs were to be found at universities or with few government agencies. But, the professor states that due to new rules, they will get more paid works. Moreover, they will be in charge of analyzing the values of those findings, how they can be preserved, collecting data and also writing articles related to the field. This kind of works will increase their livelihood.
In conclusion, due to the analysis aforementioned, the three main points made in the reading are effectively challenged by the lecture.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...logy and refutes each of the reasons. First, the reading states that many arti...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, third, in conclusion, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1499.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 271.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.53136531365 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05734859645 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10025911752 2.5805825403 120% => OK
Unique words: 141.0 145.348785872 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.520295202952 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 438.3 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More 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: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.0562958333 49.2860985944 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.071428571 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3571428571 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.85714285714 7.06452816374 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.0105755842127 0.272083759551 4% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.00344101131568 0.0996497079465 3% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0124067427381 0.0662205650399 19% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.00548897275375 0.162205337803 3% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0109779455075 0.0443174109184 25% => 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: 14.3 13.3589403974 107% => 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: 14.79 12.2367328918 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.6 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.