The reading elaborates on three reasons why the vessel found and experimented by an archaeologist in 1983 was not used as an electric battery in ancient time. However, the lecturer finds the reasons explained by the passage unconvincing.
First, according to the passage, since the electricity cannot be generated in absence of electrical conductor and there was no conductor found beside the vessel, the vessel was not used for generating electricity. However, the lecturer declares that the vessel was found by local people, who were not experts in archaeology. Indeed, local people may have found other materials with the vessel but have thrown them away as they could not recognize the material’s importance.
Second, the copper cylinder inside the jars resembles the copper cylinder found in Seleucia, whose original purpose was to
hold scrolls of sacred texts. Thus, the copper cylinder of the vessel may have had the similar function in the past. On the other hand, although the lecturer confirms the similarity between two cylinders, she points out that the cylinder found in Iraq may originally have had a purpose of holding scrolls of sacred texts and gradually adapted to provide electricity for people.
Third, according to the passage, since there were no electric devices in the past, the use of the vessel as an electric battery is meaningless. Nevertheless, the lecturer contradicts this point by explaining that in the past, the battery could be used to produce mild shock, to provide people with the evidence of invisible power. Furthermore, as today’s doctors often use mild electric current for medical purposes such as relieving pain, the doctors in the past might have used them for the same purposes.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, may, nevertheless, second, so, third, thus, as to, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 8.0 22.412803532 36% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1468.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 279.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26164874552 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08696624509 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77685960082 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.512544802867 0.540411800872 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 458.1 419.366225166 109% => 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: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
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: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.2380604919 49.2860985944 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.454545455 110.228320801 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.3636363636 21.698381199 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.0909090909 7.06452816374 143% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.476002145292 0.272083759551 175% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.176977942721 0.0996497079465 178% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.077628067368 0.0662205650399 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.243967148615 0.162205337803 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0533297684147 0.0443174109184 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 13.3589403974 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 53.8541721854 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.