The reading passage suggests that the archeological evidence and scientist was faced with many problems and limitations in Britain because of the damage to the old buildings, inadequate financial support, and not enough work position. However, the professor cast doubt on each idea of the author.
First and foremost, the article states that the huge growth of the Britain population led to destroy the old historical pieces of evidence in order to build new houses for the people. On the other hand, the lecturer rejected that point by saying that the building must be examined by scientist to determine the value of it before the construction. Furthermore, she also said that if the building is valuable, people need to plan to move it instead of destroying which is the part of new guidelines made in Britain.
Secondly, the passage indicates the financial support of the government for the archeological research is lacking which block the chances to study the old evidence. Nonetheless, the professor made a counterclaim to this idea by explaining that the examination of the building paid by the construction company, not by the government. She also argued that this situation allows the scientists with an opportunity to study more than before because it provides them with enough money.
Finally, the reading claims that there is never enough work position rather than university and a few archeological agencies for archeologists, so, a small number of archeology experts exist in Britain. In contrast, the professor contends that the new guideline provides many new jobs for people such as the examiner, planner and also the person who process the data of research. Moreover, she said that the number of archaeologists is highest in this year in its history.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 149, Rule ID: SMALL_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, use 'a few', or use 'some'
Suggestion: a few; some
...logical agencies for archeologists, so, a small number of archeology experts exist in Britain. In...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, in contrast, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1490.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 288.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17361111111 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90652170839 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538194444444 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 455.4 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 21.2450331126 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 45.4539999967 49.2860985944 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.454545455 110.228320801 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.1818181818 21.698381199 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.0 7.06452816374 170% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => 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: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.190111153648 0.272083759551 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0669969644563 0.0996497079465 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0451032103187 0.0662205650399 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115286223221 0.162205337803 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0177516459944 0.0443174109184 40% => 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: 16.0 13.3589403974 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 53.8541721854 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.0289183223 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.09 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.498013245 118% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.