An archaeologist in Iraq acquired some clay jars which were discovered by villagers two years earlier. The inside of jar was an iron rod and outside was a copper cylinder. The archaeologist has a hypothesis which these jars are ancient electric batteries. They produce electricity when filled with some liquids. This hypothesis seems to be false for the following reasons.
First, these jars need electricity conductor such as wire to used as the battery but no wire was found around them also, as the professor mentions people who find jars are not the profession. So, maybe they did not look for such this things or probably they overlooked them because they think aires are not important.
Second, the copper cylinders are completely similar to cylinders which were found in ruins of Seleucia which is an ancient city near them. In this area, cylinders were used for keeping safe scrolls of sacred texts so we can conclude that jars have not been used for the generation of electricity but according to professor statements, they may use it at this way but we can not explore it.
Third, at that time there were no device which used electricity so there is no reason for using batteries and they are useless. On the other hand, the professor says that it could be used as a magic power which is invisible and also it could be used for the medical instrument. for example, it can pulse on the muscle to stimulate them.
As a conclusion, it can be used as a battery 2200 years ago.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 229, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...n. So, maybe they did not look for such this things or probably they overlooked them...
^^^^
Line 4, column 278, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: For
...uld be used for the medical instrument. for example, it can pulse on the muscle to ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, look, may, second, so, third, for example, such as, 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: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => 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: 1226.0 1373.03311258 89% => OK
No of words: 261.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.69731800766 5.08290768461 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0193898071 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57901938654 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.544061302682 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 391.5 419.366225166 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.9522794116 49.2860985944 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.3076923077 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0769230769 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.69230769231 7.06452816374 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => 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: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.462781957512 0.272083759551 170% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.161621509038 0.0996497079465 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0801950033774 0.0662205650399 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.245154774356 0.162205337803 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0992225013893 0.0443174109184 224% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 13.3589403974 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.98 12.2367328918 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.53 8.42419426049 89% => OK
difficult_words: 48.0 63.6247240618 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.