tpo25.2
Both author and lecturer offer two opposing views on the main usage of a vessel discovered in the Iraq. While the reading part lists some reasons as the hints that the vessel did not have the function of battery, the professor counters these specific points and presents some clues to call into the question for the information in the passage.
First of all, the text mentions to the absent of electricity conductors such as the wires as the evidence that this vessel was not the battery. However, the instructor challenges the validity of this claim. As she asserts, the vessel had been excavated by the ordinary people who are not archaeology; as a result, they could discover the metal wires or other electricity conductors but as they could not identify their value and importance, they overlooked them.
Second, the article posits that the vessel is identical to the copper cylinder of Seleucia, which had the utility of preserving the scroll of sacred texts. On the other hand, the professor refutes this result. As she states, although the copper cylinder could hold the secret scroll, its function overtimes was changed and in the ancient Egypt, they used it as the battery. Consequently, the vessel with a specific purpose in the past is adapted by other people for another purpose.
Finally, the reading passage surmises that since there was no electricity device in the past; thus, the battery was useless. On the contrary, the lecturer casts debate on the accuracy of this surmise. Based on her assertion, the current of electricity is like a shock and as it is an invisible power, in the past, they used it as the magical power. Or it could be used for healing. For instance, the doctors in the ancient gained the advantages of electricity current to abate the patient's pain.
All in all, that is how the professor challenges the validity of whole claims mentioned in the reading part.
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'consequently', 'finally', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'second', 'so', 'thus', 'while', 'for instance', 'such as', 'as a result', 'first of all', 'on the contrary', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.259668508287 0.261695866417 99% => OK
Verbs: 0.129834254144 0.158904122519 82% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0497237569061 0.0723426182421 69% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0276243093923 0.0435111971325 63% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0414364640884 0.0277247811725 149% => OK
Prepositions: 0.14364640884 0.128828473217 112% => OK
Participles: 0.0331491712707 0.0370669169778 89% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.5637486456 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0110497237569 0.0208969081088 53% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.00154638098197 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.182320441989 0.128158765124 142% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0110497237569 0.0158828679856 70% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0110497237569 0.0114777025283 96% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1909.0 1645.83664459 116% => OK
No of words: 324.0 271.125827815 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.89197530864 6.08160592843 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24264068712 4.04852973271 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.351851851852 0.374372842146 94% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.271604938272 0.287516216867 94% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.197530864198 0.187439937562 105% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0925925925926 0.113142543107 82% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5637486456 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.518518518519 0.539623497131 96% => OK
Word variations: 53.7186225705 53.8517498576 100% => OK
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0529801325 115% => OK
Sentence length: 21.6 21.7502111507 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.2714599864 49.3711431718 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.266666667 132.220823453 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6 21.7502111507 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.13333333333 0.878197800319 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.39072847682 0% => OK
Readability: 48.7604938272 50.5018328374 97% => OK
Elegance: 2.19444444444 1.90840788429 115% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.643559384919 0.549887131256 117% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.1345002128 0.142949733639 94% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0719153076148 0.0787303798458 91% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.67401070044 0.631733273073 107% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.183768423148 0.139662658121 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.33990805499 0.266732575781 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.107947851275 0.103435571967 104% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.547410546595 0.414875509568 132% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0890331694742 0.0530846634433 168% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.492203661234 0.40443939384 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0657446913055 0.0528353158467 124% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.26048565121 188% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 3.0 3.49668874172 86% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 3.62251655629 55% => OK
Neutral topic words: 8.0 3.1766004415 252% => OK
Total topic words: 13.0 10.2958057395 126% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.