tpo33
Both author and lecturer offer two opposing views on the main purpose of the carved stone balls. While the reading passage lists three hypotheses about the feasible usage of balls, the professor counters these specific points and presents some clues that none of the surmises are convincing.
To begin with, the article posits that the carved stone balls were weapons were used in the hunting and fighting. However, the instructor casts doubt on the accuracy of this claim. She states other weapons related to the late Neolithic period such as the arrows, contains the wears or crack. On the other hand, the carved balls stand mostly in the best condition without the crack or damage. Thus, they did not have the utilization in the fighting and hunting.
Next, the passage mentions to the possible usage of the balls in the weighing system, since they have so uniform in size. On the other hand, the professor challenges the validity of this surmise. She asserts that although the stone balls are identical in the size, they are carved from the various stones, such as the sandstone, grain stone, which have the different density. As a result, the mass of balls vary, and they are not uniform to use for measuring the weight.
Meanwhile, the text assumes that the balls were the indicator of the social status of people, the lecturer refutes this assertion. Based on her evidence, the patterns of the stone balls are extremely simple which could not use as the mark of their owners’ social status. Besides, she points that in the last Neolithic period, the people buried the whole valuable things with their possessor; on the contrary, there is no case that the carved balls found in the tomb or grave. Thus, the carved ball stones were not important.
All in all, both reading and listening part present some information about the purpose of the carved balls which the instructor's outlook completely challenges the information mentioned in the passage.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 106, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: uniform
...the weighing system, since they have so uniform in size. On the other hand, the professor chall...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['besides', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'so', 'thus', 'while', 'such as', 'as a result', 'on the contrary', 'to begin with', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.270557029178 0.261695866417 103% => OK
Verbs: 0.111405835544 0.158904122519 70% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0822281167109 0.0723426182421 114% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0318302387268 0.0435111971325 73% => OK
Pronouns: 0.026525198939 0.0277247811725 96% => OK
Prepositions: 0.129973474801 0.128828473217 101% => OK
Participles: 0.026525198939 0.0370669169778 72% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.42331232157 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0106100795756 0.0208969081088 51% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.00154638098197 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.175066312997 0.128158765124 137% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0026525198939 0.0158828679856 17% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0079575596817 0.0114777025283 69% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1976.0 1645.83664459 120% => OK
No of words: 330.0 271.125827815 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.98787878788 6.08160592843 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26214759535 4.04852973271 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.339393939394 0.374372842146 91% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.254545454545 0.287516216867 89% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.166666666667 0.187439937562 89% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0939393939394 0.113142543107 83% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42331232157 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 145.348785872 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.524242424242 0.539623497131 97% => OK
Word variations: 54.9225785688 53.8517498576 102% => OK
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0529801325 123% => OK
Sentence length: 20.625 21.7502111507 95% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.5248911533 49.3711431718 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.5 132.220823453 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.625 21.7502111507 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.75 0.878197800319 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.39072847682 29% => OK
Readability: 46.0795454545 50.5018328374 91% => OK
Elegance: 2.515625 1.90840788429 132% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.70997022985 0.549887131256 129% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.143628784641 0.142949733639 100% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0664917699574 0.0787303798458 84% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.712386818797 0.631733273073 113% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.129712492901 0.139662658121 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.38929651005 0.266732575781 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0799620469248 0.103435571967 77% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.587375523181 0.414875509568 142% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0978742835359 0.0530846634433 184% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.542519682166 0.40443939384 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0909065530675 0.0528353158467 172% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.26048565121 141% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 3.49668874172 114% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 3.62251655629 110% => OK
Neutral topic words: 6.0 3.1766004415 189% => OK
Total topic words: 14.0 10.2958057395 136% => 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.