The reading and lecture both discuss the possible explanation of meaning and purpose of stone balls that found in Scotland. While the reading prodives three theories to explain this, the professor refutes, saying non of these claims are convincing.
Firstly, the reading states that these balls were utilized for hunting or fightong. This is because they had holes. On the other hand, the professor argues this notion by saying that anything used for hunting or fighting should has missing parts or broken parts. For example, wears on arrows or heads, but the surface of balls were pereserved without any damage. So, these balls could not be used for hunting or fighting.
In addition, the article avers that these balls used for measuring purposes. However, the professor questions this point by explaining that if they used for measuring, they should had uniform size. In fact, these balls were different in sizes and made from different stones. For example, green stones and sand stone. Besides, each stobe has different dinesty. Some stones are heavier than others. She states that two balls of the same type are different in weight. As aresults, these stones could not be used for weighting.
Lastly, the reading shows that these stone balls used to represent the person's social status. Nevertheless, the professor rejects this idea by pointing out that some balls were in a specific pattern, but others were so simple. In addition, some people with high ranking in the society died and buired in a location. We could not find any balls with them at any tomb. So, there were no connection between balls and social status.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 168, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...r hand, the professor argues this notion by saying that anything used for hunting...
^^
Line 3, column 230, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[2]
Message: The verb 'should' requires the base form of the verb: 'have'
Suggestion: have
...ing used for hunting or fighting should has missing parts or broken parts. For exam...
^^^
Line 5, column 445, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: different
...tes that two balls of the same type are different in weight. As aresults, these stones could not b...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 497, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... weight. As aresults, these stones could not be used for weighting. Lastly, th...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, nevertheless, so, while, for example, in addition, in fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1365.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 271.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.036900369 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05734859645 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.31470929359 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.549815498155 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 402.3 419.366225166 96% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.8143460679 49.2860985944 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 68.25 110.228320801 62% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.55 21.698381199 62% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.4 7.06452816374 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 13.0 4.27373068433 304% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.374857175545 0.272083759551 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.123332018921 0.0996497079465 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0609665088057 0.0662205650399 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.23198683358 0.162205337803 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0626834604011 0.0443174109184 141% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.1 13.3589403974 68% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 66.74 53.8541721854 124% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 11.0289183223 65% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.36 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.89 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.2 10.498013245 69% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.