The reading claims that the vessels which contained a copper cylinder and were found by villagers in Iraq could not be used as ancient electric batteries. However, the lecturer finds all the ideas dubious and presents some evidence to refute them all.
First of all, the author argues that if the vessels were utilized as batteries, they must be found with some electricity conductors such as wires, but there was no such material close to them. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that the absence of wires is not a convincing reason to reject this proposal. In fact, the villagers might have found wires in addition to the vessels, but these materials seemed unimportant to them, and they overlooked or even throw them out.
Furthermore, the reading passage holds the view that the aforementioned vessels are similar to those which were discovered in the ruins of Seleucia. Based on the similarities, they must have the same functions and be used for holding scrolls of sacred texts rather than generating electricity. On the contrary, the professor underlines the fact that, although these two discoveries were similar in terms of shape, they might have had a purpose in the past and then adopted another purpose after a time.
Finally, the reading asserts that there was no electrical device at that specific time which required electricity generated by these copper cylinders. In contrast, the speaker dismisses this issue due to the fact that the batteries were used for other purposes. For example, these vessels could produce an invisible shock and convinced one's magical power, or doctors might use them to stimulate dormant muscles of patients.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, look, so, then, for example, in addition, in contrast, in fact, such as, first of all, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => 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: 1401.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 273.0 270.72406181 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13186813187 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06481385082 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62436254687 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.59706959707 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 437.4 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => 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: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.4597998764 49.2860985944 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.363636364 110.228320801 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8181818182 21.698381199 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 14.6363636364 7.06452816374 207% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.443168017453 0.272083759551 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.154095997329 0.0996497079465 155% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0967745598866 0.0662205650399 146% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.260709972801 0.162205337803 161% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0331092923636 0.0443174109184 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.3589403974 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.22 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.