The article discusses an interesting topic about an archaeologist discovery of a set of clay jars, in 1938, and disagees with the archaeologist theory that the vessel were ancient electric batteries providing three main reason for support. However, the lecture casts doubts on the claims made by the article and opposed to each of the reasons of the reading passages.
First, the reading passages explains that every battery needs a conduct like metal wires to function as a electric generator and no evidence of this conduct was found with the vessels. On the contrary, the lecture argues that considering that local people and not professional archaeologists found the pieces, it could be possible that the wires were around but not be considered important and left them behind. Thus, the lack of this evidence is not a overwhelming argument to discard the possibility of an ancient battery.
Second, the lecture remarks that the fact that the same type of cylinders were used to hold sacred scrolls, in Seleucia, an ancient city nearby, does not mean that it could be later being adapted to other use. With this argument, the lecture challenges the claim of the reading passage.
Finally, the article sustains that no electric devices were found that would worked with electricity; therefore, no prove of the jar to be a battery. The lecture questions this argument by explaining that electricity could be used only as a magic element to impress other and not necessarily for a practical utility as we use today batteries in our modern life.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 105, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...conduct like metal wires to function as a electric generator and no evidence of t...
^
Line 3, column 452, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... Thus, the lack of this evidence is not a overwhelming argument to discard the po...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, second, so, therefore, thus, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1297.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 257.0 270.72406181 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.046692607 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00390054096 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7175750234 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552529182879 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 406.8 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => 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: 28.0 21.2450331126 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 53.5246568311 49.2860985944 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.111111111 110.228320801 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.5555555556 21.698381199 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.66666666667 7.06452816374 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.338654005286 0.272083759551 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.12830300895 0.0996497079465 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0845445167293 0.0662205650399 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.201442834998 0.162205337803 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0191382915099 0.0443174109184 43% => 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: 16.6 13.3589403974 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 53.8541721854 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.31 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.