Contrary to the reading, the notion that the carved stone balls were used as weapons, units for measuring or representative of people's social status seems to be unlikely due to the reasons that the lecturer explicates.
First of all, although the reading refers to the holes which were observed in the covered stone balls as indicators of their usage as some vessels for battling of hunting, the lecturer strongly contends that if they were used as weapons, signs of being worn out or being broken should have been observed like the signs of damage which were observed in arrowhead and hand axes. As a result, this hypothesis seems to be really dubious.
Secondly, unlike the author who believes that these stone balls might have been used as units for measuring weight or other variables, the lecturer refutes this claim and states that in spite of the fact that they all were approximately around the same size, they weighed differently because they were made up of different materials such as sandstone, chords or green stone. Therefore, they couldn't have been used as units for measuring weights.
At last, The article asserts that these carved stone balls were used as indicators of people's social status because they have diverse designs whereas the lecturer considers the fact that these patterns are really simple and cannot act as an intricate instrument for depicting people's class in a given society. She also argues that when people died, their precious possessions were buried with them. As a matter of fact, if these carved balls were used as some social possessions, they should have been buried with people whereas unfortunately, no stone carved ball has been observed in a tomb or grave. Consequently, this claim does not posses a strong support in order to be acceptable.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 392, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
... chords or green stone. Therefore, they couldnt have been used as units for measuring w...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, first, if, really, second, secondly, so, therefore, whereas, such as, as a matter of fact, as a result, first of all, in spite of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => 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: 1502.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 299.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02341137124 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49335982402 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.511705685619 0.540411800872 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 459.0 419.366225166 109% => 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: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 33.0 21.2450331126 155% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 123.400082038 49.2860985944 250% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 166.888888889 110.228320801 151% => OK
Words per sentence: 33.2222222222 21.698381199 153% => OK
Discourse Markers: 16.5555555556 7.06452816374 234% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
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 : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.436122231215 0.272083759551 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.183612607612 0.0996497079465 184% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.121616787543 0.0662205650399 184% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.278281038792 0.162205337803 172% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0592451929429 0.0443174109184 134% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.8 13.3589403974 141% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.44 53.8541721854 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.0289183223 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.43 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 27.5 10.7273730684 256% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 15.2 10.498013245 145% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.