In the reading passage, the author mentions three assumptions regarding the purpose of the carved stone balls; however, the lecturer refutes all of these arguments.
The author first states that the carved stone balls were once used for hunting or fighting since the holes and grooves on them may be the signs of weapons. This theory is rebuts by the lecturer, who argues that the stone balls are well-preserved and do not exhibit any specific sign of weapons. Moreover, if the stone balls were served as weapons, broken pieces or cracks should have been found.
The second hypothesis is that the carved stone balls played an important role in the measuring and weighing systems as they possessed the quality of uniformity in size. The author suggests that they could have been used as standard weights to measure food. The lecturer counters this view, asserting that though stone balls are virtually same in the size, they consist of different types of stones. From sandstone to limestone or quartz, stone balls vary in weights due to their dissimilar densities.
The third assumption claims that stone balls would be the symbols of social status for individuals. The lecturer, however, challenges this assertion and points out the opposite facts. On the contrary, the stone balls are too simple to serve as a social purpose. Furthermore, they are not discovered near the graves of high-ranking people, which indicates that these stone balls are simply not people's belongings, which should have been carried when people died.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 258, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ed as standard weights to measure food. The lecturer counters this view, asserting ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, second, so, third, well, 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: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => 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: 1288.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 250.0 270.72406181 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.152 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.97635364384 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4865204604 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.58 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 378.0 419.366225166 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.2404672217 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.333333333 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8333333333 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.66666666667 7.06452816374 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.524755377657 0.272083759551 193% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.194476291319 0.0996497079465 195% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0747552155152 0.0662205650399 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.293161412653 0.162205337803 181% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.119798114022 0.0443174109184 270% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 13.3589403974 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.92 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.