TPO 33
The lecture and the reading discuss some stone balls that found in Scotland about 4000 years ago. Although the passage claims that these stone balls made for specific purposes, the speaker refutes this idea through several reasons which I will describe in this reporter.
First and foremost, the passage points out that the stone balls may have been using for hunting as a weapon. The lecturer, in contrast, rejects this by claiming that if the stone balls had been using as weapons, they might neede hand access or sign to wear. Also, we can not find some sign that shows this stone used as a weapon like crack. Researchers only found some small crack or damage to them. Hence, they may not use as a weapon.
Furthermore, unlike the passage which state that stone balls may have used for weighing and measuring, the professor argues that these stones did not have the same weight. They only have a uniform size, but the balls have different masses. Because they made with a different type of stone like sandstone and greenstone, and they have different density. Therefore, some stones are heavier than the other stone with a uniform size. Therefore, they would not use for weighting.
Finally, although the reading passage says that the crave stone balls may have been used as a social purpose to show a practical or utilitarian one. The speaker disagrees by mentioning that some balls found with some pattern, but these patterns are extremely simple. Also, she adds that when an important person died, they burned with them all the position. So we just found these stones in the grave, but we found it in other places.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 12, column 49, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
... although the reading passage says that the crave stone balls may have been used as a soc...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, hence, if, may, so, therefore, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 20.0 30.3222958057 66% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1368.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 280.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.88571428571 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09062348924 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.21864777718 2.5805825403 86% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.517857142857 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 408.6 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.079001631 49.2860985944 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.5 110.228320801 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.125 7.06452816374 73% => 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 : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.471032913916 0.272083759551 173% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.172698959741 0.0996497079465 173% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0753301115929 0.0662205650399 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.305261618691 0.162205337803 188% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0556095658579 0.0443174109184 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.4 13.3589403974 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.79 12.2367328918 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.47 8.42419426049 89% => OK
difficult_words: 53.0 63.6247240618 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.