The author describes that the science of archaeology has faced serious problems and restrictions for the most 20th century in Britain and brings up three reasons to support this claim. On the other hand, the professor asserts that since 1990, when new rules and guidelines were enacted, a lot of changes can be observed in the field of archaeology which have improved all three areas discussed in the reading. Also, she refutes each of the author's points with rational grounds.
First, the writer states that many precious artifacts were destroyed due to the construction projects. Nevertheless, the lecturer points out that before constructing a building, according to the guideline, a lot of examinations have been performed before starting the construction. In fact, the constructor should know that whether there is either archaeological interests or valuable artifacts in the target site or not. Before the construction, the local government should make a preservation plan and make a documentary about the archaeology artifacts.
Second, according to the reading, many archaeologists felt that the governmental monetary support for archaeological research was insufficient. Conversely, the professor brings up the idea that the construction projects should be paid by the construction projects, not by the government. Furthermore, archaeologists have to pay money for the initial examinations under the preservation plans and all the other related works.
Third, archaeology jobs were difficult to have owing to the fact that archaeologists were treated as unpaid amateurs. However, the speaker posits that thanks to the new guideline, there are a lot of paid works available. In fact, various experts are hired in each stage of projects construction. To be more specific, in different research steps, such as initial examination, a preservation plan, all scientific manners, processing data and preparing a report and documentary, a large number of skillful people gather together which are the highest rate of archaeology job opportunities it has ever been.
Therefore, the points mentioned in the reading do not make any sense.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 476, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...and preparing a report and documentary, a large number of skillful people gather together which a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, first, furthermore, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, third, in fact, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 12.0 22.412803532 54% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 5.01324503311 259% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1813.0 1373.03311258 132% => OK
No of words: 328.0 270.72406181 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.52743902439 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25567506705 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22054994131 2.5805825403 125% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 145.348785872 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.573170731707 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 539.1 419.366225166 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 2.5761589404 311% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.3896842583 49.2860985944 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.866666667 110.228320801 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8666666667 21.698381199 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.66666666667 7.06452816374 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.337471863942 0.272083759551 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101185963601 0.0996497079465 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0719943980098 0.0662205650399 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.156599105287 0.162205337803 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0831672603487 0.0443174109184 188% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 13.3589403974 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.79 12.2367328918 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 63.6247240618 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.