The reading passage states three explanations for the clay jars cannot be used as electric batteries, whereas the lecture points out that the reasons are not convincing.
Firstly, the author insists that if they were not used as batteries, they presumably would be attached to electricity conductors, but there are not such evidence, so they cannot be batteries. The professor, however, argues that the jars were discovered by local individuals, and they may find something like conductors nearby. Since they do not undergo professional training, they may not recognize the importance of these things.
Secondly, the reading says that the shapes of the jars highly resemble to the copper cylinders which were found in Seleucia, therefore, they probably possess the same functions, that is holding scrolls. In contrast, the speaker reckons that the finding cannot prove anything. Using ironic rods will produce electricity, thus the jars may first were used as one purpose, and then adapted to another purpose.
Lastly, the reading states that since ancient people had no devices which were electricity-required, there were no needs for them to use batteries to generate electricity. On the contrary, the professor deems that batteries can produce shock and unusual sensitive for people who touched it, in this way, they may use the jars to convinced others that they had magical power. In addition, the batteries can use for healing, and ancient doctors may use it to relieve pain like the modern physicians.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, whereas, in addition, in contrast, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 20.0 30.3222958057 66% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1277.0 1373.03311258 93% => OK
No of words: 241.0 270.72406181 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.29875518672 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94007293032 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81007541183 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.593360995851 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 391.5 419.366225166 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => 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: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.9790423902 49.2860985944 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.7 110.228320801 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1 21.698381199 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 14.2 7.06452816374 201% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.383352301791 0.272083759551 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.149225212111 0.0996497079465 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0797351828906 0.0662205650399 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.219997064247 0.162205337803 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0635690701635 0.0443174109184 143% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 13.3589403974 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.54 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27 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.