The reading article and the lecture both talk about the carved stone balls and the usage of those balls in Neolithic period. While the reading states three theories about the possible use of balls, the lecture refutes those possibilities, saying that the theories are not convincing enough.
First of all, the reading suggests the balls were used as weapons for hunting and fighting. Holes and grooves indicate possible use of balls as weapons using a chord. However, the lecture argues that weapons usually show the signs of wear and tear. But, the balls are smooth and there is no apparent sign of damage like any cracks or broken pieces.
In addition, the reading article makes the argument that the ball size was uniform. And the balls were served as a primitive system of weights and measurements for various goods. The lecture counters this point by stating density of balls will vary according to the type of stone. Some stones will be heavier than the others and this makes difficult to use balls interchangeably and to weigh goods accurately.
Lastly, the reading article argues that the carved balls dons elaborated designs and were used to represent social status of the owner. The lecture refutes the claim by pointing out that the absence of balls in tombs or graves. Elite members of society were used to be buried with their possessions when they die. Moreover, the professor says the simplistic pattern on the balls does not explain the status. In conclusion, the lecture counters all three theories made by the reading passage.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, lastly, moreover, so, while, in addition, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 22.412803532 49% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1294.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 260.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97692307692 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01553427287 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.38000795583 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.55 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 389.7 419.366225166 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 24.2904645214 49.2860985944 49% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 86.2666666667 110.228320801 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.3333333333 21.698381199 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.26666666667 7.06452816374 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 4.33554083885 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.373250994921 0.272083759551 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.132768202653 0.0996497079465 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.077077314238 0.0662205650399 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.233533578589 0.162205337803 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0440761492649 0.0443174109184 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 13.3589403974 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 68.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.5 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.