The author and the lecture hold a set of conflicting opinions about history of human settlement. According to the passage, it is the author's opinion that it has several merits, and provides three reasons to support it. However, the lecture states that it's dubious and skeptical, thus opposing each of the author's reasons.
First of all, the reading material suggest that several artifact were lost due to the constriction projects. In contrast, the professor puts forth the idea that in 1919, they put guidelines to regulate constrictions. He states that before any constriction , the area have to be examine to make sure that the place preserve, examine and if they found any things value, the will build around it. Clearly a disparity exists between the article and the evidence exhibited by the professor. Hence, first the proposal is negated since it cannot explain why.
Second, the article pushes forth the idea that artifacts did not get support financially. However, the classroom discussion contends that by the excavator paid by constrict company. According to the professor, the artifact get support by the projects holder, and the government. Consequently, we can argue that indeed the claim made in reading is unsubstantiated.
As the last point to emphasize the reading claim, the author says it's difficult to find job in that field, and the carries is so difficult to obtain. Conversely, the professor refutes this point by explaining that this field gets supports in so many branches, like from examine, Drawing preserver, processing the data and writing the reports. Therefore, climate fluctuations cannot explain this decline.
In summary, while both the reading and classroom discussion provides interesting information with regards to the artifact supports, a significant amount of evidence support that this field get support from project's holder and the government. Therefore. the reading passage fails to justify the claims.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 134, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...nt. According to the passage, it is the authors opinion that it has several merits, and...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 49, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun artifact seems to be countable; consider using: 'several artifacts'.
Suggestion: several artifacts
... all, the reading material suggest that several artifact were lost due to the constriction proj...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 65, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...g material suggest that several artifact were lost due to the constriction projec...
^^
Line 3, column 257, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
.... He states that before any constriction , the area have to be examine to make sur...
^^
Line 5, column 243, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'projects'' or 'project's'?
Suggestion: projects'; project's
...fessor, the artifact get support by the projects holder, and the government. Consequentl...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 328, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ntly, we can argue that indeed the claim made in reading is unsubstantiated. A...
^^
Line 9, column 243, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...rom projects holder and the government. Therefore. the reading passage fails to justify t...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 254, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...s holder and the government. Therefore. the reading passage fails to justify the cl...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, conversely, first, hence, however, if, second, so, therefore, thus, while, in contrast, in summary, first of all
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: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1652.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 307.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38110749186 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82732373231 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5667752443 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 491.4 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.7312380718 49.2860985944 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.1764705882 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0588235294 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.41176470588 7.06452816374 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 4.19205298013 191% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.0965627135177 0.272083759551 35% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0277455023066 0.0996497079465 28% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0268594154238 0.0662205650399 41% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.051998977567 0.162205337803 32% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0140471845228 0.0443174109184 32% => 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: 12.9 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.63 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.8 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.