The article discusses the possible functions of peculiar carved stone balls that were found in scotland, and provides three theory to explain them. The professor, however, indicates that these theories are not convincing, and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the article states that the carved stone balls might be used as weapons or used for hunting and battling. The professor disagrees with this point, and explains that weapons that were used in ancient era have certain signs for identifying. She explains they have cracks or have some pieces broken apart from them, but these carved stone balls have not those signs. Therefore, it is unlikely that they were used as weapons.
Second, the author claims that the carved stone balls might have used as a part of a primitive system of weights and measures. The professor refutes this point, and says that since the balls are in different types, they couldn't have been used for those purposes. She expresses that they have different densities, and some are heavier than others.
Finally, the article explains the third theory, which is that the carved stone balls were using for social purposes, since they had elaborate designs and could have used in tombs. The professor doesn't agree with this point as well, and thinks that since the balls have intricate design, they couldn't have served as a symbol stone balls that were found in tombs, because the symbol stones have simple design. Moreover, since these carved stone balls weren't found in tombs or graves, this theory is highly unlikly to be true.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The article discusses the possible funct...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...efutes each of the authors reasons. First, the article states that the carve...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...kely that they were used as weapons. Second, the author claims that the carve...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 226, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
... the balls are in different types, they couldnt have been used for those purposes. She ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s, and some are heavier than others. Finally, the article explains the third ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 200, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...could have used in tombs. The professor doesnt agree with this point as well, and thin...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 298, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...e the balls have intricate design, they couldnt have served as a symbol stone balls tha...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 455, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: weren't
...oreover, since these carved stone balls werent found in tombs or graves, this theory i...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, therefore, third, well, apart from
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => 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: 1316.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 261.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04214559387 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0193898071 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.14508751551 2.5805825403 83% => OK
Unique words: 128.0 145.348785872 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.490421455939 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 387.9 419.366225166 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 7.0 1.51434878587 462% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.3483675615 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.666666667 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.75 21.698381199 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.5 7.06452816374 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 4.19205298013 191% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.515769707114 0.272083759551 190% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.222126562686 0.0996497079465 223% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105567146158 0.0662205650399 159% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.347675031077 0.162205337803 214% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0827626512929 0.0443174109184 187% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 13.3589403974 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.19 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.