The main topic of both the passage and the lecture is about challenges face to archaeology exploration in the United Kingdom. Considering this, the author claims that archaeology activities have declined in Britain, especially, from the 1950s on. On the contrary, the professor utterly rejects whatever mentioned in the passage through citing new guideline.
First, both the passage and the lecture talk about recent growing construction in Britain. According to the passage, explanation of construction have demolished many precious artifacts, because the land was uncautiously digging and no one cares about them. Nonetheless, the professor denies it and state, the guild line now are required builders to examine the land in order to find artifacts.
Second of all, both the passage and the lecture discuss financial problems to budget archeology's activities. The author goes on to mention since the government is the only finance provider for these kinds of exploration, they lack financial supporter. The professor, however, supports the contradictory idea and illustrates, the new reformation has obligated affluent companies to pay for archeology operation needed for construction, like initial observation and preservation. Thus the problem has vanished!
Eventually, both the passage and the lecture discuss the idea of inadequate jobs for the archeologists. The author claims, there are no jobs for the professional archeologist, unless some limited jobs in government agencies and universities. The professor refutes the author's opinion and says, thanks to the reformation abundant of jobs have been created. For example, companies need to recruit archeologists for examination, preservation and other jobs that the law obligated.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 479, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...e initial observation and preservation. Thus the problem has vanished! Eventually...
^^^^
Line 7, column 269, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...universities. The professor refutes the authors opinion and says, thanks to the reforma...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, nonetheless, second, so, thus, for example, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 12.0772626932 17% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 7.0 22.412803532 31% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 5.01324503311 339% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1492.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 259.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.76061776062 5.08290768461 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01166760082 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15301972244 2.5805825403 122% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.590733590734 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 459.9 419.366225166 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.0936130718 49.2860985944 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.769230769 110.228320801 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9230769231 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.07692307692 7.06452816374 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => 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: 0.195720990889 0.272083759551 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0662306677398 0.0996497079465 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0350789357498 0.0662205650399 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113285247079 0.162205337803 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0167283977205 0.0443174109184 38% => 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: 15.7 13.3589403974 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.27 53.8541721854 65% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.13 12.2367328918 132% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.94 8.42419426049 118% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 63.6247240618 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.