top 15.1
Although the author states three hypotheses to support the fact that archaeological researchers are faced with difficulties and restrictions to study of old artifacts in Britain in twentieth century, the professor finds all points dubious and brings some counter reasons to refute them all.
Considering the first, the reading material holds the view that the first setback is that some construction in the cities and towns have made some artifacts to be lost or destroyed. For example, digging out foundation leads to destroy many uncovered sites. However, the lecturer finds them completely unconvincing and asserts that before any construction takes place, the builders and government and even archaeological scientists examine the place and carve the ground to see if any artifacts have left and in the case of finding any, they preserve them.
Furthermore, the reading material argues that financial aids are not adequate for doing research and examining the places around sites. They used to be founded by government before changing government’s priorities. In contrast, the speaker contends that companies who are in charge of construction pay for all expenses including examining the site, preserving the artifacts, doing research and processing and reporting the site.
Eventually, the passage claims that archaeological researcher not only are not satisfied from their income but also they pursue other careers since this is not a well-paid job. They suffer from lack of archaeological-related job opportunities. On the other hand, the professor casts doubt this idea and says that according to new guidelines, professional archaeological researchers are needed to be hire in order to examine the site, collecting data and preserving the artifacts. So this job has been one of the most important and appealing jobs in Britain.
Consequently, the reading material claims some reasons for the fact that the guidelines are not practical and have lots of limitations. Countering that the professor refutes them all since by emergence of new rules, all prior limitations for archaeologists have been solved.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, furthermore, however, if, so, well, for example, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 7.30242825607 233% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1806.0 1373.03311258 132% => OK
No of words: 326.0 270.72406181 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.53987730061 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24917287072 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19385112503 2.5805825403 124% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 145.348785872 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.570552147239 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 540.9 419.366225166 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => 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: 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: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 76.3721037084 49.2860985944 155% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.923076923 110.228320801 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0769230769 21.698381199 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.53846153846 7.06452816374 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => 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: 17.2 13.3589403974 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 53.8541721854 70% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.15 12.2367328918 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.14 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 63.6247240618 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.