The article states that the science of archaeology was faced with serious problems and limitation in Britain. However, the professor argues that actually the new rules and guidelines implemented in 1990 has changed the situation.
First, the article points out that many valuable were lost to construction projects since the growth of the population in Britain. The professor explains that the new rules would force every site to be examined before starting construction. Thus, the valuable artifact would be preserved in advanced.
In addition, the article points out that the support most of the financial support was come from government funds and grant, which is not enough for archaeological research. However, the professor refers that after the implementation of new guidelines, the construction company has the responsibility to pay for the initial examination process and the afterward preservation process. It would actually become a big financial source for this field.
Finally, the article believes that the archaeology is not the good career. Most of people who want to be archaeologist would end up pursuing other career in the future since the available job position is not enough. However, the professor points out that nowadays there are more available job due to the new guideline. We need the archaeology profession to draw the preservation plan, proves the data, and do the final report. There are plenty of jobs available now in Britain. Thus, the professor refute the idea of the article.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 36, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun valuable seems to be countable; consider using: 'many valuables'.
Suggestion: many valuables
.... First, the article points out that many valuable were lost to construction projects sinc...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 76, Rule ID: MOST_SOME_OF_NNS[1]
Message: After 'Most of', you should use 'the' ('Most of the people') or simply say ''Most people''.
Suggestion: Most of the people; Most people
...the archaeology is not the good career. Most of people who want to be archaeologist would end ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 290, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'jobs'?
Suggestion: jobs
... that nowadays there are more available job due to the new guideline. We need the a...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, finally, first, however, if, so, thus, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 11.0 22.412803532 49% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => 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: 1283.0 1373.03311258 93% => OK
No of words: 240.0 270.72406181 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.34583333333 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.93597934253 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91630652538 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 131.0 145.348785872 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.545833333333 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 390.6 419.366225166 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.9351573642 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.6428571429 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1428571429 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.28571428571 7.06452816374 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.311202065611 0.272083759551 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0960220734709 0.0996497079465 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0747028280558 0.0662205650399 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.178630326166 0.162205337803 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0260520461206 0.0443174109184 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.45 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.43 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.