The main idea of both the passage and the lecture is about serious dilemma limitation front of archeology science. In this line of thought, the reading states that the limitation occurs in Britain and adduce some reasons for this way of thinking. The lecturer, on the other hand, casts doubt on all of the three episodes of arguments mentioned in the passage, believing that none of these strategies are practical and lead to the real world. In the rest of the passage, a comparison between them is provided.
First of all, the reading and the listening materials talk about many valuable artifacts were lost to construction projects. The author explains that while digging foundations for new buildings, the builders often uncovered archaeologically valuable sites. On the contrary, the lecturer believes that before starting a construction, the archeologist must examine the construction and the land around the construction’s site. Therefore, it is a cause of archeologists can excavate and document the buildings’ evidence properly before the construction start.
Second, both the text and the talk discuss many archaeologists felt that the financial support for archaeological research was inadequate. The author points out that archaeology was funded mostly through government funds and grants, which allowed archaeologists to investigate a handful of the most important sites but which left hundreds of other interesting projects without support. Therefore, the author elaborates that changing government priorities brought about periodic reductions in funding. However, the lecturer notes that the archeologists are funded by Construction Company. Construction companies have to pay to archeologists for examination the sites. These companies are enough moneyed to other archeological researcher can do their research project. This was another place where experience contradicted the theory.
Eventually, it was difficult to have a career in archaeology which are discussed by both the passage and the lecture. The author mentions that Archaeology jobs were to be found at universities or with a few government agencies, but there were never many positions available. Hence, the author suggests that many people who wanted to become archaeologists ended up pursuing other careers and contributing to archaeological research only as unpaid amateurs. The lecturer rebuts this argument. The lecturer states that there are many job opportunities in the constructing building’s process that archeologists can done. For example, first opportunity is archeological interest value which must do in the first stage of the process. Also, archeologists can work in the preservation, served, data gathering, and writing paper parts of in the each building process. Therefore, there are many works for expertise archeologists in this field. This opinion directly contradicts the passage presented and making it infeasible.
Sum up, although the passage provides some reasons to belittle archaeological opportunities, the lecture opposes about the effectiveness and possibility of those reasons.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 296, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...urer, on the other hand, casts doubt on all of the three episodes of arguments mentioned i...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, second, so, therefore, while, for example, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 7.30242825607 219% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 30.3222958057 188% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 5.01324503311 379% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2659.0 1373.03311258 194% => OK
No of words: 460.0 270.72406181 170% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.78043478261 5.08290768461 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6311565067 4.04702891845 114% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.30947756858 2.5805825403 128% => OK
Unique words: 248.0 145.348785872 171% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.539130434783 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 810.9 419.366225166 193% => 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: 17.0 8.23620309051 206% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 13.0662251656 191% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.9856325389 49.2860985944 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.36 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.16 7.06452816374 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.27373068433 257% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.410926386154 0.272083759551 151% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.103236180758 0.0996497079465 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0990464158311 0.0662205650399 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.198479382264 0.162205337803 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.127424442938 0.0443174109184 288% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 53.8541721854 67% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.24 12.2367328918 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.09 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 133.0 63.6247240618 209% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.