The reading and the passage are both contradicting with each other, in terms of use and purpose regarding the carved stone balls. The author of the reading presented three theories in support for that the carved stone balls were used purposefully. However, the lecturer casts doubt about the claim presented in the article and refutes all the idea presented in the paragraph. He added that all the idea are not practical and convincing.
First of all, according to the article, the holes and grooves on the carved stone ball showed that they might have used for hunting or fighting. On the contrary, the speaker negates the arguments presented in the passage. Furthermore, he discusses that if the stone ball has been used as a weapon, there would have some wear on the ball, however, nothing like that was found on that. Also, none of the balls was broken off which proved that stone balls must not have used as a weapon or fighting purpose.
Secondly, the author posits that stone balls were too heavy in weight, and thereby, they might have used as a primitive system of weight and measures. Although the lecturer refutes this by asserting that the density of these balls varies from each other because they are made of different materials. Even, the same size of two balls shows different weight. Therefore, the weight measure theory was wrong for the stone balls.
Finally, it is mentioned in the article that the elaborated special design on the stone ball may mark the social status of their owners, and because of that, they might have used for a social purpose. On the other hand, the speaker believes that if they were serving a purpose in a social community then they would have been buried in the grave as it was their personal possession, but no balls were found in the grave. Hence, this theory is not acceptable too.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 55, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: heavy
...author posits that stone balls were too heavy in weight, and thereby, they might have used as a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 5.01324503311 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1518.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 319.0 270.72406181 118% => OK
Chars per words: 4.75862068966 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22617688928 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.32901226065 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.492163009404 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 467.1 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.8284259926 49.2860985944 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.2 110.228320801 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2666666667 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.8666666667 7.06452816374 154% => 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 : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.546815843729 0.272083759551 201% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.182398499548 0.0996497079465 183% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.121009199235 0.0662205650399 183% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.341157956608 0.162205337803 210% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0759244663376 0.0443174109184 171% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.3589403974 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.33 12.2367328918 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.