tpo33
The passage and the lecturer discuss carved stone balls which were found almost 4000 years ago in Scotland. The author of the article has three theories which are the possible usages of this kind of stone. On the other hand, the professor refutes each of the author's opinions with her reasons. I will mention their viewpoints bellow.
The first possibility that the passage asserts is the fact that these stones could be weapons in the past, using for hunting and fighting because the holes on their surface have been seen. The lecturer, nevertheless, has the opposite opinion. She thinks they were not weapons because they could be cracked and broken. She adds these stones have been observed very well and there was no damage point on them.
Secondly, the reading passage claims that they could be part of the first system of weight and measurement since they all had the same shape and size, 70mm in diameter. The professor rejects this hypothesis by mentioning to their different masses. She states that they were in the same size but carved stone balls had been made from a variety of stones so they had various density and weight. Therefore, they could not use as criteria to help ancient folks to compare objects' weight.
Finally, the author of the passage mentions there is a possibility that these balls used as an ornamental object because they curved elaborately. By contrast, the professor has a different point of view. She thinks they were too simple to use for this matter. In addition, there is not even one ancient grave in which the person put with these stones. While the ancient high-rank people were used to putting their valuable things besides them in the grave.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 352, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “While” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...which the person put with these stones. While the ancient high-rank people were used ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, finally, first, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, while, in addition, kind of, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => 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: 1400.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 289.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.84429065744 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.27822549777 2.5805825403 88% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550173010381 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 421.2 419.366225166 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.4169446119 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.3529411765 110.228320801 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.82352941176 7.06452816374 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.37797949471 0.272083759551 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106353137797 0.0996497079465 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.090077427287 0.0662205650399 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.224030186447 0.162205337803 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0501241668394 0.0443174109184 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.9 13.3589403974 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.5 12.2367328918 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.7 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.