The reading and the lecture discuss the studying of old cultural artifacts in the United Kingdom from different perspectives. The lecture seems to negate all the problems that the reading has mentioned in the article.
First of all, the author of the reading points out that many meaningful artifacts were destroyed by the construction of many buildings. This point is challenged by the lecture. The lecture restates the fact that before any construction is built, companies work with local government to examine the values of that places. If they see any valuable artifact, they will sit together and find a way to preserver its values.
Secondly, the author of the reading contends that archaeologist lack of financial support for their jobs. It is stated that archaeologists was paid by government, and when the U.S change the government, the funding was reduced as well. The lecture rebuts this idea with the fact that every work is done by archaeologists is paid by the companies who own the constructions. In fact the companies support amount of money for archaeologist than ever before.
Finally, the author of the reading states that many people would like to offer their ability to archaeology, but there is no available job. The lecture on the other hand, opposes this point that there are a lot of work for archaeologists. He puts forth the idea that the companies pay a lot of money for archaeologists to do a lot research and to report the article. Moreover, now there are more professional archaeologists now than in the past.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 178, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: S
... was paid by government, and when the U.S change the government, the funding was ...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, moreover, second, secondly, well, in fact, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1287.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 259.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96911196911 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01166760082 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94414646205 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 145.348785872 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.521235521236 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 387.9 419.366225166 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => 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: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 28.7249447167 49.2860985944 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 91.9285714286 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.07142857143 7.06452816374 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => 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: 0.210813542185 0.272083759551 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0684637258187 0.0996497079465 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0438508110665 0.0662205650399 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119995984003 0.162205337803 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0347445594941 0.0443174109184 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.52 8.42419426049 89% => OK
difficult_words: 49.0 63.6247240618 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.