The passage and lecture both discuss three statements around a 2200 years old vessel that was acquired in Iraq in 1938. The passage posits this tool could not be used as an electric battery by demonstrating three counterarguments. In contrast, the lecturer mentions that the arguments of the reading are not convincing and she opposes each author's justification.
Firstly, the text points out that there was no any metal wire near the vessels to attest that they were exploited as batteries. The professor refutes this and explains that the vessels were discovered by local people not by archaeologists. They were not trained to recognize the importance of the materials, and as a result perhaps the wires and conductors could be thrown away.
Secondly, the passage puts out the similar copper cylinders were found in Seleucia can confirm that told vessel functioned to keep scrolls of holy texts. However, the lecturer indicates that it is true they are alike but this not proofs anything. The copper cylinders could originally design to preserve scrolls and then ancient inventors possibly discovered how to use them for electricity production. In other words, the cylinders could be adapted for another purpose.
Thirdly, the article claims the mentioned vessel was totally useless because ancient folk had no any device depended on electricity. The speaker opposes this and says that they could be utilized to produce a shock or maybe as an invisible and a magic power. Besides, they could be useful for healing to stimulus muscles and relieve the pain. Ancient doctors possibly employed batteries for the same goal.
Essay evaluation report
the passage puts out the similar copper cylinders were found in Seleucia can confirm that
the passage puts out that the similar copper cylinders which were found in Seleucia can confirm that
The copper cylinders could originally design to preserve
The copper cylinders could be originally designed to preserve
flaws:
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 25 in 30
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 12
No. of Words: 263 250
No. of Characters: 1334 1200
No. of Different Words: 160 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.027 4.2
Average Word Length: 5.072 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.636 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 102 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 85 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 47 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 29 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.786 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 4.798 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.643 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.31 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.553 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.073 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 45, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...tly, the text points out that there was no any metal wire near the vessels to atte...
^^
Line 7, column 95, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...otally useless because ancient folk had no any device depended on electricity. The...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, as to, in contrast, as a result, in other words, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1369.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 263.0 270.72406181 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20532319392 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02706775958 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73264753432 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.600760456274 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 418.5 419.366225166 100% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => OK
Sentence length SD: 28.1112948467 49.2860985944 57% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 97.7857142857 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7857142857 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.7857142857 7.06452816374 153% => 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 : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.402035452709 0.272083759551 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121855602949 0.0996497079465 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0649709066169 0.0662205650399 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.224997777284 0.162205337803 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0690603373664 0.0443174109184 156% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.09 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.