Based on the reading material, it is stated that there are 3 viable hypotheses regarding the use of carved stone balls made around 4000 years ago. However, the lecturer finds this idea bereft of sufficient reasoning and presents some ideas to the contrary.
Initially, the author argued that these stone balls were used as weapons in hunting and fighting owing to the fact that its design led a person to swing it around or throw it. That being said, the lecturer repudiated this idea by clarifying that if carved stone balls were used as weapons, they must have signs of wear or damage, whereas unlike the most arrows and hand axes which were used in ancient times in hunting and fighting, these tools have no signs of damages and they are actually very well preserved.
Another point mentioned by the author was that these tools were used as part of a primitive system of weights in order to measure quantities of grain or other food. However, the lecturer rejected this one too by stating that these carved stone balls have different masses owing to the fact that they were made of different stones, including sand stones, grind stones, and quartzide stones. So, some of them are heavier than others and as a result, they have different weights. Thus, they couldn't be used for measuring.
The final point advanced in the reading passage was that the carved stone balls were served a social purpose. Since they have elaborated designs, they must be used as a social sign for its owner. Yet again, the professor casted doubt on this idea. She said that unlike the reading passage, these tools have very simple designs and as a result, they couldn't be used as a social sign for their owners. Also, ancient people were buried with their possessions after their death, whereas there is no sign of these carved stone balls on graves. Hence, they may not have marked important social status of their owners.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 488, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...they have different weights. Thus, they couldnt be used for measuring. The final point...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 349, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...ry simple designs and as a result, they couldnt be used as a social sign for their owne...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, hence, however, if, may, regarding, so, thus, well, whereas, as to, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 22.412803532 178% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => 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: 1576.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 331.0 270.72406181 122% => OK
Chars per words: 4.76132930514 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26537283232 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.16618631665 2.5805825403 84% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 145.348785872 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504531722054 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 483.3 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 3.25607064018 338% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 74.2882211115 49.2860985944 151% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.571428571 110.228320801 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6428571429 21.698381199 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.78571428571 7.06452816374 96% => 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: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.455697616926 0.272083759551 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.165467069142 0.0996497079465 166% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0785908799627 0.0662205650399 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.290217530378 0.162205337803 179% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0680287613419 0.0443174109184 154% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.62 12.2367328918 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.