TPO 44
The article states that some archaeologists claim that the coin, which was discovered at a Native American archaeological site in the state of Maine in the U.S., is a fake historical evidence. The reading provides three reasons of support. However, the professor thinks that it is not fake, and casts doubt on each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading posits that where the coin was located is very far from other sites documenting a Norse presence. The professor refutes this point by explaining that some Native American had come to there before, and it is their interest. So, they could bring the coin when they are traveling.
Second, in the article it was mentioned that other coins were found at the Canadian sites that were inhabited by the Norse. However, Norse did not create permanent stay and there is a possibility that they had originally brought the coin and then, had returned it to Europe, again, the professor say.
Third, the reading asserts that the Norse would probably have understood that North Americans do not like silver coins. Consequently, they had not brought it. The professor opposes this point by saying that Norse knew that Americans value beauty. So, due to the fact that the silver is beautiful, it was possible for them to have brought it.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The article states that some archaeologi...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...oubt on each of the authors reasons. First, the reading posits that where the...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ng the coin when they are traveling. Second, in the article it was mentioned ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...to Europe, again, the professor say. Third, the reading asserts that the Nors...
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['consequently', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'third']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.211382113821 0.261695866417 81% => OK
Verbs: 0.19512195122 0.158904122519 123% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0609756097561 0.0723426182421 84% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0609756097561 0.0435111971325 140% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0528455284553 0.0277247811725 191% => OK
Prepositions: 0.113821138211 0.128828473217 88% => OK
Participles: 0.0569105691057 0.0370669169778 154% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.52250621864 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0162601626016 0.0208969081088 78% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.00154638098197 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.121951219512 0.128158765124 95% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.00813008130081 0.0158828679856 51% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0162601626016 0.0114777025283 142% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1309.0 1645.83664459 80% => OK
No of words: 218.0 271.125827815 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.00458715596 6.08160592843 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.84250218741 4.04852973271 95% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.307339449541 0.374372842146 82% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.243119266055 0.287516216867 85% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.160550458716 0.187439937562 86% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.110091743119 0.113142543107 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52250621864 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 121.0 145.348785872 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.55504587156 0.539623497131 103% => OK
Word variations: 51.8941518832 53.8517498576 96% => OK
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0529801325 92% => OK
Sentence length: 18.1666666667 21.7502111507 84% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.1118808503 49.3711431718 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.083333333 132.220823453 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1666666667 21.7502111507 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.666666666667 0.878197800319 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.39072847682 118% => OK
Readability: 42.4785932722 50.5018328374 84% => OK
Elegance: 1.23684210526 1.90840788429 65% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.707518298192 0.549887131256 129% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0757066443466 0.142949733639 53% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0539061203906 0.0787303798458 68% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.599644603734 0.631733273073 95% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.14143629898 0.139662658121 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.326767501038 0.266732575781 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.149518972525 0.103435571967 145% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.433088863256 0.414875509568 104% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0432765930689 0.0530846634433 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.524011123524 0.40443939384 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0413272457438 0.0528353158467 78% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.26048565121 94% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 3.49668874172 114% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 3.62251655629 83% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 3.1766004415 63% => OK
Total topic words: 9.0 10.2958057395 87% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.