TPO 16
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, through the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, the time of the Roman colonization, the Middle Ages, up to the beginnings of the industrial age. Yet for most of the twentieth century, the science of archaeology, dedicated to uncovering and studying old cultural artifacts, was faced with serious problems and limitations in Britain.
First, many valuable artifacts were lost to construction projects. The growth of Britain's population, especially from the 1950s on, spurred a lot of new construction in British cities, towns, and villages. While digging foundations for new buildings, the builders often uncovered archaeologically valuable sites. Usually, however, they proceeded with the construction and did not preserve the artifacts. Many archaeologically precious artifacts were therefore destroyed.
Second, many archaeologists felt that the financial support for archaeological research was inadequate. For most of the twentieth century, 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. Furthermore, changing government priorities brought about periodic reductions in funding.
Third, it was difficult to have a career in archaeology. Archaeology jobs were to be found at universities or with a few government agencies, but there were never many positions available. Many people who wanted to become archaeologists ended up pursuing other careers and contributing to archaeological research only as unpaid amateurs.
The article and the lecture both about the Britain's archeology policies regarding the archeologly sites and state of professionals on this field. The author of the reading believes there are three problems regarding archeology in Britain. The lecturer challenges the statements made by the author. She is of the opinion that new guidelines from the government improved the state of archeology in Britain.
First of all, the author suggests that lots of crucial archeology sites were destroyed by construction projects. It is mentioned that due to the population growh and demand for developing cites, towns, and so on have had negative impact on the artificats that they basically did not maintain the artificats.
The argument is refuted by the lecturer. She says nowadays construction sites are carefully examind, and by law if they find any artificat or archeological sites, builders, local government and archeologists preserve the site and construct around it or record the sites that are about to destroyed.
Secondly, the article posits that there is not enough fund to support archeological research. The article notes only a few vital historical sites are permitted to be studied while leaving many other sites without any support, The lecturer, however, casts doubt on this by asserting that by the new government policy, the construction company must pay for the archeological invesitations. The lecturer elaborates on this by mentioning that all the works related to these investigations and later studies must be carried out by the support of the construction companies.
Finally, it is stated that having a proffesion in archeology is difficult to maintain. The author establishes that exception of universities and government agencies, there are very few archeology job positions. Hence, usually people who pursue archeology change their career eventually. The lecturer, on the other hand, opposes that due to the above policy, the are lots of paid works regarding archeology. She puts for the idea that experts in archeology are hired in all the sites in construction works. Such as investigation, and if find any artifacts, report to the government, and etc.
flaws:
No. of Words: 343 250
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
-----------------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 23 in 30
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 12
No. of Words: 343 250
No. of Characters: 1793 1200
No. of Different Words: 170 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.304 4.2
Average Word Length: 5.227 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.967 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 126 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 107 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.176 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.545 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.647 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.324 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.324 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.096 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 4