The passage and lecture both discuss three assumptions around copper vessels. The passage provides three supports to hold up the hypothesis of electricity in ancient copper vessels.
In contrast the speaker states that the justifications of reading are not convincing and demonstrates some arguments.
Firstly, the reading section posits that there are no wires around ancient site therefore, vessels were not connected to batteries. In fact they produce electricity themselves without using some electric devices. On the other hand, the lecture refutes this idea and mentions that local people may throw away wires or other electric instruments that they found. Indeed, they do not know archeology details consequently we cannot trust their survey.
Secondly, the text indicates that copper cylinders that have found in jars are look like the copper cylinders that discovered in Seleucia. So, we can understand that they were used for holding scrolls too. In other words, the both of them were not generating electricity. Otherwise, the woman denies this and points out that the possible fact is when the ancient people mixed iron and liquid together they could reach first batteries.
Thirdly, the author claims that they had no instrument that had ability to response on electricity. As batteries, the vessels could have been useless to them. On the contrary, the lecture opposes this and states that ancient doctors used batteries for medical issues. For instance when they wanted to give mild shocks they touched it.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 4, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[2]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: contrast,
...ctricity in ancient copper vessels. In contrast the speaker states that the justificati...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, firstly, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, for instance, in contrast, in fact, in other words, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1288.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 240.0 270.72406181 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.36666666667 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.93597934253 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58573812801 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.591666666667 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 387.0 419.366225166 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.8814470604 49.2860985944 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.8666666667 110.228320801 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.0 21.698381199 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.0 7.06452816374 170% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.438509357813 0.272083759551 161% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.129999081725 0.0996497079465 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0783823888296 0.0662205650399 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.194696939653 0.162205337803 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.121910475059 0.0443174109184 275% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.57 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.57 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.