In this set of material, the passage and the lecture offer two opposing points of view about the exploitation of the vessels founded in Iraq. While the passage states that these vessels did not use in order to obtain electricity and provides three reasons of support, the lecture refutes these three shreds of evidence and remarks that these shreds of evidence are not convincing.
First of all, the passage asserts that due to the vessels did not attach to some electrical conductors like metal wires, there is no evidence that they were not used as a battery. On the other hand, the lecture points out the fact that these vessels were found by local people who were not expert in archeology to determines that there may be some attachments that were eliminated or destroyed unconsciously by locals.
In addition, the article declares that these vessels are similar to copper cylinders discovered in the ruins of Seleucia. according to the fact that these cylinders were used to hold scrolls of sacred texts, they may have the same utilization. The lecture contradicts this remark by arguing that although the similarity is true, it does not prove the utilization of the vessels, she states that the original utilization of these vessels may be holding the sacred texts but it may change during the time.
Finally, the author claims that ancient people had no devices that replied to electricity. The speaker refutes this saying by pointing out that the battery could have been used in healing to reduce pain and showing magical actions by taking advantage of invisible power in ancient time.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 122, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: According
...rs discovered in the ruins of Seleucia. according to the fact that these cylinders were u...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, may, so, while, in addition, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1329.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 268.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95895522388 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04607285448 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51852957114 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 141.0 145.348785872 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.526119402985 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 423.9 419.366225166 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => 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: 29.0 21.2450331126 137% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 57.3658391917 49.2860985944 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.666666667 110.228320801 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.7777777778 21.698381199 137% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 7.06452816374 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.364297856852 0.272083759551 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.159720178701 0.0996497079465 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.091403846998 0.0662205650399 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.204895936528 0.162205337803 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0859186414421 0.0443174109184 194% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.8 13.3589403974 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 53.8541721854 78% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.0289183223 132% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.08 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.498013245 130% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.