The main idea of both the reading and the lecture is about theories are related to using carved stone balls. Considering this, the author states archaeologists don't have a unanimous idea about the purpose of stones, but there are some theories. The professor, on the other hand, clearly challenges whatever contended in the reading by citing logical reasons which show these theories are unconvincing.
First, both the author and the lecturer talk about using stone balls as weapons. As claimed by the passage, the carved stone balls were weapons used in hunting, defending or attacking. The professor, nevertheless, contradicts the author's view and explains that weapons of those people such as arrows had signs about fighting. in addition, if these stones were used in battle must be cracked. While there were any signs of wear or damage to the stones.
second of all, the passage goes on the mention that carved stone balls were used as part of a primitive system of weights. In contrast, the lecturer describes that stones used in the system of measuring should have uniform size and uniform weight. while carved stone balls of the same size don't have the same weight. This various weight is because of the variety of stones include sandstones or green stones. These stones have different density so that different weights.
The last point discussed in the passage has to do with carved stone balls served a social purpose because many stone balls have decorated. However, the professor rejects this by explaining these stones had different patterns and were too simple which used as symbols. In that time, if a high-rank person died, buried with their possessions. While there are no stone balls in graves.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 161, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... this, the author states archaeologists dont have a unanimous idea about the purpose...
^^^^
Line 2, column 326, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: In
...uch as arrows had signs about fighting. in addition, if these stones were used in ...
^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Second
...signs of wear or damage to the stones. second of all, the passage goes on the mention...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 248, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: While
...d have uniform size and uniform weight. while carved stone balls of the same size don...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 248, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “while” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...d have uniform size and uniform weight. while carved stone balls of the same size don...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 290, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ile carved stone balls of the same size dont have the same weight. This various weig...
^^^^
Line 4, column 341, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “While” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...on died, buried with their possessions. While there are no stone balls in graves.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, while, as to, in addition, in contrast, such as, 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: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => 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: 1431.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 284.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03873239437 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45875266945 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.510563380282 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 439.2 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 1.25165562914 479% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.8145768203 49.2860985944 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 84.1764705882 110.228320801 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.7058823529 21.698381199 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.88235294118 7.06452816374 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.480219127173 0.272083759551 176% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.166737493162 0.0996497079465 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.107186012235 0.0662205650399 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.30483917221 0.162205337803 188% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0908486764423 0.0443174109184 205% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 13.3589403974 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.1 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.