TPO-16 - Integrated Writing Task The United Kingdom (sometimes referred to as Britain) has a long and rich history of human settlement. Traces of buildings, tools, and art can be found from periods going back many thousands of years: from the Stone Age, t

Reading and lecture discuss the importance of archaeology in the United Kingdom. On the one hand, the writer states that archaeology faced serious problems and limitations, providing three reasons of support. However, the lecturer refutes the claims made by the writer, saying that over the last decades, various rules and guidelines improved three fields of archaeology.

First, the writer asserts that many valuable artifacts were destroyed during the construction projects. In contrast, the lecturer rejects this statement, adding that before any construction begins, the archaeological sites are examined by experts to determine if these are places of interest. Moreover, they make plans with local governmental authorities to preserve or exploit the archaeological site, and these consist in building around it or excavating the artifacts. Thus, this standpoint contradicts the passage.

Second, besides the government funds and grants, archaeology receives financial support from the construction company as well. They initial analyze the field and if necessary, the companies contribute with money. So, the writer's allegation that archeology is poorly funded is not true, and once again his motif does not stand up.

Third, since the process of analyzing archaeological sites involves many stages, many experts were hired. This is a very complex process which supposes elaborating and implementing methods of preservation, making researches, processing data, writing reports and so forth. As a result, numerous archaeologists found jobs in this fields. Therefore, this final counter-argument repels the writer's final reason.

Votes
Average: 9 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 222, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...ompanies contribute with money. So, the writers allegation that archeology is poorly fu...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 324, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
..., numerous archaeologists found jobs in this fields. Therefore, this final counter-a...
^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, therefore, third, thus, well, in contrast, as a result

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1403.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 238.0 270.72406181 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.89495798319 5.08290768461 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.92775363542 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03982522383 2.5805825403 118% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.68487394958 0.540411800872 127% => OK
syllable_count: 420.3 419.366225166 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK

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: 43.1287228503 49.2860985944 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.214285714 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.85714285714 7.06452816374 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.245302485218 0.272083759551 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0809343989286 0.0996497079465 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.068889130163 0.0662205650399 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.13558143775 0.162205337803 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.027211599128 0.0443174109184 61% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.3589403974 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.3 53.8541721854 69% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.59 12.2367328918 136% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.65 8.42419426049 126% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 63.6247240618 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.