The reading article talks about ancient copper vessels found in Iraq and presents three theories to dismiss the possible use of those vessels as batteries. The lecture refutes the theories discussed in the article and supports the possible use of vessels as batteries with counter arguments.
First, the reading passage states that, the villagers did not find any metal wires with the vessels, which can act as conductors to work with the batteries. The lecture argues that, the local villagers were not trained archaeologists who can distinguish between important ancient artifacts and other materials. There is a high chance they might have overlooked the wires or other important materials and threw that away.
In addition, the reading states that, the copper cylinders found in Iraq are very similar to copper cylinders found in Seleucia, and it is possibly used to store scrolls of sacred texts even though they did not find any scroll. However, the lecture counters this theory and points out that, the same shape does not prove anything. There is a high chance that ancient inventors have used the original design of copper cylinders and discovered that with the use of iron rod and liquid these cylinders can be adapted as batteries.
Lastly, the reading points out that, there were not any devices in ancient time which ran on electricity and invention of the batteries was useless without such devices. But, the lecture presents an argument that, these batteries produce mild shocks and people back then considered the batteries as invisible, magical power devices. Moreover, the professor adds, modern medicine uses shock therapy to heal aches and pains and ancient doctors might have used the batteries for the same purpose.
In conclusion, the lecture refuses all the three claims presented in the article and states that the claims are not convincing enough to hold true.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, lastly, look, moreover, so, then, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => 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: 1594.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 307.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19218241042 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44118064962 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.517915309446 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 483.3 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.23620309051 170% => 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: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.2992732976 49.2860985944 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.833333333 110.228320801 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5833333333 21.698381199 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.08333333333 7.06452816374 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.34797588998 0.272083759551 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.118246550663 0.0996497079465 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0705782166511 0.0662205650399 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.165715316899 0.162205337803 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.083780132741 0.0443174109184 189% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 13.3589403974 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 53.8541721854 86% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.