TPO25-integrated essay
The lecture mainly contradicts the information that given in the reading passage stating that scientists have advanced in the several hypotheses explain the reduction population of the yellow cedar in northwestern North America, whereas the lecture says there is not any tight evidence to support this idea that vessels were implemented as electric batteries by ancient people. There are various points discussed in the lecture to cast the doubts in the reading passage.
Firstly, the reading states that in order to generate the electricity, the metal wires presumably were used as a conductor. However, the speaker tells there is possible that the other material such as were discovered as well as vessels by local people. However, that people were not a trained archaeologist to recognize the other materials such as conductor.
Secondly, reading suggests that the copper calenderers inside the Jar were similar to those in the ruins that located nearby in terms of shape and application. However, the lecture states that this is not a right reason. For example, it is possible that copper calenderers were initially used as to preserve the scrolls. After that, the first batteries were invented using the iron rods and some liquids.
Thirdly, the reading suggests there are not any devices to show that the vessels have the electrical application. In contrast with the reading, the speaker tells that it possible that those vessels as batteries have some other applications such as magic and healing by stimulate the muscles and relieve ashes and pains.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The lecture mainly contradicts the infor...
^^^
Line 5, column 118, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[2]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: contrast,
...els have the electrical application. In contrast with the reading, the speaker tells tha...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, well, whereas, as to, for example, in contrast, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1317.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 250.0 270.72406181 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.268 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.97635364384 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67200299401 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 126.0 145.348785872 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.504 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 414.0 419.366225166 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 83.5434266249 49.2860985944 170% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.727272727 110.228320801 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7272727273 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.8181818182 7.06452816374 167% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.3256290114 0.272083759551 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.123611151937 0.0996497079465 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0589570037296 0.0662205650399 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.190441973367 0.162205337803 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.04540831219 0.0443174109184 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.3589403974 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 53.8541721854 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.