TPO 33-integrated writing task
The author states some theories of the purpose and meaning of carved stone balls that are found in Scotland. As opposed to, the lecturer who counters-argues that viewpoint trying to prove that these three theories do not seem convincing.
First and foremost, the writer mentions that the carved stone balls were weapons used fr hunting or fighting. Actually, in some of them they have found holes and grooves on the surface. On the contrary, the professor cannot disagree more, reasoning that these stone balls were very well-preserved and the surface was very smooth. Therefore, they could have not been used as weapons.
The second argument the author gives is that these stones were used as standard unit of measure. Because, their sizes are so nearly at 70 mm in diameter which means a perfect size for that purpose. Consequently, they have used those as a standard weights to measure quantities of grain or other food. However, the lecturer cannot be more outraged, explaining that these stones are made from different material such as rocks, sand etc. So, their density is very different. As a result, they were not right for standard measuring.
Lastly, on one hand, the passage points out that the carved stone balls served a social purpose as opposed to a practical or utilitarian one. These stones have elaborate designs. Very important people may had own them. Therefore, stones may have marked the important status. Nevertheless, the lecturer declares that none of these stones is found inside the tombs of important figures. So, we cannot say for certain that they played that important role.
Although, the text suggests three theories in supporting the meaning and purpose that stones had, the lecturer believes that none of them are persuasive.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 8, column 210, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[3]
Message: Possible agreement error – use past participle here: 'owned'.
Suggestion: owned
... designs. Very important people may had own them. Therefore, stones may have marked...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, consequently, first, however, if, lastly, may, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, well, such as, as a result, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => 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: 1489.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 290.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13448275862 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12666770723 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54748249514 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.541379310345 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 449.1 419.366225166 107% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.6750209319 49.2860985944 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 78.3684210526 110.228320801 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.2631578947 21.698381199 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.21052631579 7.06452816374 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.530021080046 0.272083759551 195% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.159192667097 0.0996497079465 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0930886808203 0.0662205650399 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.276700871565 0.162205337803 171% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.093853032044 0.0443174109184 212% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.4 13.3589403974 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 53.8541721854 120% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 11.0289183223 73% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.88 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.