Reading and lecture are both about the purpose of some ancient vessels, which were discovered in Irak in 1938. On the one hand, the writer says that their scope is not related to any electrical usage. On the other hand, the lecturer states doubts on the claims made by the author, underlining that his proves are some inaccurate when compared to real facts.
First, the jars were discovered by local people, not by archaeologists. The author considers that the vessels were not used as batteries because there was not any viable evidence about the existence of electricity conductors. However, speaker refutes this argument because the jars were found by ordinary individuals, who had no special training in managing antiquities, and therefore there is a big chance that they throw away some parts which seemed to be irrelevant. In other words, they might have discovered some metal wires and destroyed them aftermath. This is a strong counter-point to the writer's point of view.
Second, it is true that the main purpose of pots was to preserve sacred text, as the authors sustains. He compares them with other copper cylinders that were found in a nearby location, specifying that those jars contained paper scrolls. Anyway, the lecturer states that even though the jars were initially used for storing texts, some ancient people might have observed that these jars can produce electricity when making contact with metal wires or various liquids. Thus, this argument is denying the passage.
Third, ancient individuals could have used electricity different from how it is used today. The writer says it was impossible for them to use batteries because they have not any specific device. Conversely, the lecturer infringes this, and she says that people could have used it for magic tricks. Moreover, electricity has healing properties, so ancients could have take advantages from these point of view. For instance, when electricity stimulates the muscles, pain is released. This third point gainsays the passage as well. To summarize, the author and the lecturer are in total disagreement regarding this topic.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 489, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...or various liquids. Thus, this argument is denying the passage. Third, ancient individu...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
anyway, conversely, first, however, if, moreover, regarding, second, so, therefore, third, thus, well, as to, for instance, in other words, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1784.0 1373.03311258 130% => OK
No of words: 342.0 270.72406181 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21637426901 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30037696126 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61583333623 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 145.348785872 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.549707602339 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 551.7 419.366225166 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 52.4740273441 49.2860985944 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.8947368421 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.89473684211 7.06452816374 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.366950913847 0.272083759551 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101576699193 0.0996497079465 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0795644078949 0.0662205650399 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.215070036311 0.162205337803 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0727491583447 0.0443174109184 164% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.7 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 63.6247240618 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.