The reading states that the vessels were discovered in Iraq not possibly used as electric batteries and provides three theories for support. However, the lecturer argues against all of the author theories and states none of them are convincing.
First, the reading mentions that there was no evidence of electricity conductors near to the vessels that used to attach the batteries. Conversely, the lecturer refutes this theory by saying that the vessels were found by a local resident and not by experts; thus, it could be possible that the conductors were there but have been overlooked or thrown away.
Second, the author states that the copper cylinders found in Seleucia were used for holding scrolls, not for generating electricity. The lecturer points out that it is possible that copper cylinders found for one purpose and then adapted to another purpose; for instance, it could have been mixed with an iron jar in order to produce electricity.
Finally, although the reading states that there were no devices that replied on electricity; thus, no benefit for having them, the lecturer responds by saying that there was mild electrical power were generated from the vessels, which could be useful for many things; for example, healing. This invisible power could be used to stimulate muscle and relieve pain as it has been used today.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 179, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...t. However, the lecturer argues against all of the author theories and states none of them...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 359, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ut have been overlooked or thrown away. Second, the author states that the coppe...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, finally, first, however, look, second, then, thus, for example, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 20.0 30.3222958057 66% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1133.0 1373.03311258 83% => OK
No of words: 220.0 270.72406181 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.15 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.85128510684 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49486663053 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 121.0 145.348785872 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.55 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 350.1 419.366225166 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 13.0662251656 61% => 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: 27.0 21.2450331126 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 62.9959076052 49.2860985944 128% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.625 110.228320801 128% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.5 21.698381199 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.625 7.06452816374 165% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.436620691668 0.272083759551 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.19838783118 0.0996497079465 199% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0840482682367 0.0662205650399 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.268943535126 0.162205337803 166% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0566917464112 0.0443174109184 128% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 13.3589403974 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 53.8541721854 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.92 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.498013245 122% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.