The reading and the lecture are both about archaeology in UK. The author of the reading believes that the science of archaeology which is dedicated to revealing and measuring old cultural artifacts was faced with some problems in the UK. The Lecturer casts doubts on the claims presented by the author. She thinks that the author's proposition is based on some unwarranted assumptions and the UK government later improve the situation by modification of their laws.
To begin with, the author points out that due to construction projects many significant and historical artifacts were lost.It is mentioned that while constructing a new building the builders often revealed archaeologically valuable sites. The artifacts were destroyed as there was no option of preserving. This point is challenged by the lecturer. She says that before construction, the construction site has to be tested by archaeologists. Furthermore, she argues that if they find any artifacts, the government, the builders and the archaeologists work together to preserve the valuable artifacts either by excavating or documentation.
Secondly, The author contends that there was not enough financial support for the archaeological research work. The article notes the reason behind inadequate financial support provided by the government. The Lecturer rebuts this argument.SHe suggests that it is not only governments duty to support financial but also the duty of the construction company. The builders have to pay the initial amount for researchwork. She elaborates on this by mentioning that the company's initial funding policy allows the researcher to analyse the artifacts more easily and smoothly.
Finally, the author states that it was not easy to build up a career in archaeology. The article states that archaeology jobs were scarce in comparison with other jobs. The Lecturer, on the other hand, posits that according to new law there is a lot of opportunities in an archaeological job. She puts forth the idea that the archaeologist could increase their income by writing articles, proper documentation which is based on their analysis of an archaeological site.
In conclusion, the lecturer effectively challenges the claims made in the article.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 239, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...was faced with some problems in the UK. The Lecturer casts doubts on the claims pre...
^^^
Line 3, column 124, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: It
...cant and historical artifacts were lost.It is mentioned that while constructing a ...
^^
Line 5, column 273, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'governments'' or 'government's'?
Suggestion: governments'; government's
...gument.SHe suggests that it is not only governments duty to support financial but also the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 358, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...o the duty of the construction company. The builders have to pay the initial amount...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, furthermore, if, second, secondly, so, while, as to, in conclusion, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 46.0 30.3222958057 152% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 5.01324503311 279% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1896.0 1373.03311258 138% => OK
No of words: 346.0 270.72406181 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.47976878613 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31289638616 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21708368738 2.5805825403 125% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 145.348785872 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.554913294798 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 580.5 419.366225166 138% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 16.0 8.23620309051 194% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 53.3826929946 49.2860985944 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.7894736842 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2105263158 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.31578947368 7.06452816374 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.304680435227 0.272083759551 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0828395360065 0.0996497079465 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0634759721034 0.0662205650399 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.139689888437 0.162205337803 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0820619966473 0.0443174109184 185% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 13.3589403974 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 53.8541721854 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.5 12.2367328918 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.86 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 63.6247240618 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.