The lecturer disputes the author's suggested theories about the uses of carved stones balls, artifacts discovered during the Neolithic period. He casts doubt about these claims and argues that they did not serve the purposes mentioned.
First, the lecturer contradicts the fallacy of the passage that the stones were used as weapons by the Neoliolithic people. He contends that there is no clue to show that they were used this way because they do not have any cracks on their bodies. Moreover, non of the artifacts discovered have any broken pieces which indicates that were used for fighting or hunting.
Second, according to the author the curved stones may have been used for weighing traded objects because they are similar in size. Again, the lecturer find this idea debatable. He contend by saying that because the curved stones are made of different material, they might have different densities which accordingly means different weights. As a result, they cannot be used for weighing.
Finally, the author argues that the curved stones have different patterns. As a result, they might have been used as personal items to show the social status. The lecturer refutes this claims by saying that because the designs were simple, it is not likely they have been used this way. Besides those items were not buried with their owners which is usually a typical thing to do for people in that era.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 181, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'He' must be used with a third-person verb: 'contends'.
Suggestion: contends
...e lecturer find this idea debatable. He contend by saying that because the curved stone...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...thing to do for people in that era.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, besides, finally, first, if, may, moreover, second, so, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 19.0 30.3222958057 63% => 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: 1173.0 1373.03311258 85% => OK
No of words: 234.0 270.72406181 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.01282051282 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91114542567 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.2951582689 2.5805825403 89% => OK
Unique words: 123.0 145.348785872 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.525641025641 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 359.1 419.366225166 86% => 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: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.3295894246 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.2307692308 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.15384615385 7.06452816374 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => 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: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.318444947629 0.272083759551 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.124166000902 0.0996497079465 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0560266573593 0.0662205650399 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.212450220131 0.162205337803 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0130020465758 0.0443174109184 29% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.48 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 65.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.5 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.