According to the given set of the reading passage, it is the author's conviction that carved stones, found in the Scotland, might have been used for some implications which lead to several theories in the text. On the contrary, the lecturer casts doubt on these hypotheses and refutes each of the author's theories by providing several counter-arguments that are as follows:
First of all, the reading holds the view that carved stone balls used as a weapon against the enemy or as a tool for hunting. Conversely, the lecturer finds this reason unconvincing and asserts that prevalent weapon in the Neolithic period was the arrow. In addition, if they used these weapons for hunting or fighting, the surface of stone should have damaged and ruined to several broken pieces. But, the surface of these carved stones have preserved very well until today and no damage cannot be observed. As a result, they could not be used as weapons.
Secondly, although the author points out that these stones were utilized as a system to measure the weight of goods, the lecturer repudiates this theory too by explaining that a ball constructed by various types of rocks, such as sandstone or greenstone, which have different weight due to their different densities. In other words, it was possible two stones with the same shape, have different weights. Hence, they could not be used as a system to measure the quantities of grains or foods.
As the last point to emphasize the reading claim, the author says that the stone balls served a social target. Yet again, the lecturer states on the opposite side and contradicts that two different types of these stones can be observed, which some of them have sophisticated patterns and some have a simple motif. Furthermore, the high-ranking persons of the Neolithic period, buried with their possessions. But none of the balls have been found in the graves. Therefore, they could not be used as a personal status in their community.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 62, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...n set of the reading passage, it is the authors conviction that carved stones, found in...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, first, furthermore, hence, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, in addition, such as, as a result, first of all, in other words, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1642.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 331.0 270.72406181 122% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96072507553 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26537283232 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64563573995 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.516616314199 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 495.9 419.366225166 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 81.458014727 49.2860985944 165% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.285714286 110.228320801 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6428571429 21.698381199 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.9285714286 7.06452816374 169% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 0.435893882388 0.272083759551 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.148761053162 0.0996497079465 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0523055024888 0.0662205650399 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.260181310547 0.162205337803 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0728594240663 0.0443174109184 164% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.3589403974 103% => 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: 11.78 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 10.7273730684 172% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.