The reading passage and the lecture are both about a discovery in Iraq. More specifically, an archaeologist found some clay jars which they seemed to utilize as electric batteries. But the author believes that there is no convincing reason to prove the usage of these kinds of batteries in ancient times. The lecturer in the listening passage disagrees and provides some evidence to refute all the mentioned disagreements in the article.
First of all, the author begins by stating that there were no metal wires near the vessels to indicate they were employed as batteries. The lecturer, however, disagrees. He declares that these vessels were found by the local people who they might do not able to recognize the wires and omitted them.
Furthermore, the author mentioned that some similarities existed between the copper cylinders in the jars and the holder of scrolls of sacred texts. This justifies that it was not necessarily related to an electricity generator. Again, the lecturer believes there are flaws in the writer's argument. The speaker holds that although they looked like, it can not prove anything. He goes on to say that the ancient people utilized copper also for the other purposes.
Lastly, the article mentioned that ancient humans did not possess any electronic devices which work by this power; therefore, it was entirely ineffective for them. In turn, the professor in the listening passage is doubtful that this is accurate. He states that this electricity power used for some targets such as illustrating magical powers or curing the disease by the doctors.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 281, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...ecturer believes there are flaws in the writers argument. The speaker holds that althou...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, look, so, therefore, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => 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: 1329.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 259.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13127413127 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01166760082 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66753177383 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 145.348785872 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.571428571429 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 427.5 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.188760832 49.2860985944 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.6 110.228320801 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2666666667 21.698381199 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.26666666667 7.06452816374 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.33233031346 0.272083759551 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0889549438101 0.0996497079465 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0771939641624 0.0662205650399 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.180534724818 0.162205337803 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0716353773663 0.0443174109184 162% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 53.8541721854 85% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.05 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.