The reading passage discuss an interesting topic about how the science of archaeology is suffering in the United Kingdom and provides extensive information with three reasons for support. However, the lecture casts doubt on this claim. She thinks that, on the contrary, the science of archaeology is better than ever in Britain since a new law was implemented, in 1990, and opposes each of the reasons giving by the reading passage.
First of all, the reading passage states that construction projects destroy many of the archaeological sites, and in consequence, many artifacts uncovered by the builders are damage, too. On the contrary, the lecture explains how, today, that is not possible as the construction companies have to research and verify every site destined for a construction before any action. Moreover, in case the site presents an archaeological interest, a carefully planification has to be made in coordination with scientists to provide the right care during the construction.
Secondly, the reading passage argues that the financial support for archaeological research are declining. In opposition to this idea, the lecture explains that the private construction companies provide the money to research a site looking for possible archaeological value. Thus, according to the lecture the financial for research are increasing.
Finally, the author of the reading passage sustanis that archaeological jobs are more difficult to find and that the offer is declining. On the contrary, the lecture refutes this argument based on the reasons explained above. Consequently, because the responsibility of the construction companies to do a previous research of an area where they plan to built, the offer for archaeological positions are increasing in the United Kingdom more than ever.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 304, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[3]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'previous research'.
Suggestion: previous research
...ity of the construction companies to do a previous research of an area where they plan to built, th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, finally, first, however, if, look, moreover, second, secondly, so, thus, as to, first of all, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 22.412803532 54% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 5.01324503311 279% => Less nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1532.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 278.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.51079136691 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16296500155 2.5805825403 123% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.514388489209 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 477.9 419.366225166 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.7461312687 49.2860985944 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.666666667 110.228320801 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1666666667 21.698381199 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.25 7.06452816374 145% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.246050620379 0.272083759551 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0940802126023 0.0996497079465 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0545802088311 0.0662205650399 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158114383168 0.162205337803 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0384729515273 0.0443174109184 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 13.3589403974 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 53.8541721854 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.0289183223 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.97 12.2367328918 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.