tpo33 carved stone balls
TPO33
In the passage, the author simply claims that there are three theories which can explain the purpose and meaning of the carved stone balls. However, in the lecture, the professor finds that the passage is full of holes and provides evidence to oppose from all three aspects.
To begin with, in the passage, the author states that the carved stone balls were used as weapons in hunting and fighting. Nevertheless, in the lecture, the professor indicates that the balls would be signed of weapon use if they truly were used as weapons in that time. What's more, the surface of the balls were well preserved, so it is difficult to make judge that the balls were used as weapons.
The second aspect the author mentions in the passage is that the carved stone balls were used as part of a primitive system of weights and measures. Conversely, in the lecture, the professor makes the point that the balls’ sizes were various. Besides, they were also made of diverse types of stone so that they were different in the density. In this way, it is not convincing that they were used of measuring.
Another evidence the professor adopts to refute the passage is social purpose. In the passage, the author claims that the elaborate carving stones suggest that they may mark social status. On the contrary, in the lecture, the professor thinks that some balls are extremely too simple to be the status of the wealth. What's more, in that time, high-ranking people usually were buried with their possessions, but the balls were never found in tombs.
To sum up, the author may ignore some fundamental factors and conclusion should be seriously discussed again.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 272, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: What's
...ruly were used as weapons in that time. Whats more, the surface of the balls were wel...
^^^^^
Line 15, column 317, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: What's
... simple to be the status of the wealth. Whats more, in that time, high-ranking people...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, conversely, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, so, well, on the contrary, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 10.4613686534 201% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1398.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 284.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92253521127 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.37984411346 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.489436619718 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 426.6 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 12.0 2.5761589404 466% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 24.3423708872 49.2860985944 49% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 99.8571428571 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2857142857 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.78571428571 7.06452816374 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.416575112419 0.272083759551 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.155893014991 0.0996497079465 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0933660068922 0.0662205650399 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.22164186694 0.162205337803 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.125378377689 0.0443174109184 283% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.