tpo 33
The reading passage claims that carved stone balls, round in shape and designed specifically for some purposes, have been used for different meaning and ornamentation. However, the lecturer finds all the ideas dubious and presents some evidence to refute them all.
First, the author embraces the idea that these stone were used as the weapon for hunting or fighting. In contrast, the lecturer underlines the idea that if these stones were used for these purposes, some signs of war and destruction should have been found by archaeologists. But no one sews such a damage on the surface of these stones.
Furthermore, the author holds the view that these stones may have been used for the system of weight and measure. Conversely, the professor brings up the idea these stones balls have been in different forms and shapes with various densities. So, it is unlikely that stone balls were used for measuring or weighing because one stone was heavier and the other lighter.
Finally, as set forth by the author dexterous carved design of stone balls recommended it has an important social status for their owners. On the contrary, the speaker dismisses this issue due to the fact that the design of stone balls was so simple and when high-ranked people in the society died, they buried important objects with themselves into the grave. But there were no signs of stone balls in tomes or graves buried with people.
Having scrutinized all the theories, a logical conclusion that can be drawn is that there are pieces of evidence having been ignored by the author while the presence of which could strengthen the author's claim.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 53, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: round
...passage claims that carved stone balls, round in shape and designed specifically for some purp...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 297, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[1]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'damage'.
Suggestion: damage
...by archaeologists. But no one sews such a damage on the surface of these stones. Furt...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 212, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ich could strengthen the authors claim.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, then, while, in contrast, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1364.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 273.0 270.72406181 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99633699634 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06481385082 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47158033684 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 145.348785872 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.553113553114 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 414.0 419.366225166 99% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.9538985786 49.2860985944 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.666666667 110.228320801 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.75 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.08333333333 7.06452816374 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.416815644679 0.272083759551 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.166591163574 0.0996497079465 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0831012368503 0.0662205650399 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.221343736343 0.162205337803 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104566109416 0.0443174109184 236% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 13.3589403974 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.