tpo33-integrated writing
Both reading and listening part present two opposite views about the theories of carved stone purpose and use in the late Neolithic period. While the passage lists three possible theories about the possible usage of these stones on that period, the lecturer casts doubt on the accuracy of these theories and considered them as unconvincing one.
First of all, the text claims that these stones were used as a weapon in the fights or hunting; however, the professor denies this assertion. As she mentioned, any types of a weapon on that period possessed a sign of use; for instance, the arrow has the sign of hand access. Or there should be cracks on the surface of stone or broken pieces of the stones until prove the claim that the purpose of stones was a weapon. But, the surface of the stones is well-reserved without any crack which contradicts with considered purpose.
The second possible purpose of stones in the passage is considered the primitive weighing system; while the professor denies this consideration too. As she posited, the since stones are carved from various stones with different density, they do not own the identical mass. Consequently, as they do not own the same density and mass, they could not be useful for the weighing system.
Finally, meanwhile, the reading part assumes the stones were the indicator of the social status of their owner; the listening section rejects this assumption. As the lecturer said, all the stones do not have the same level of elaboration, while some stones were so elaborated, others were so plain and simple. Furthermore, during the late Neolithic period, the dead person was buried with his possession, on the other hand, there is evidence that these stones were buried in the tomb or grave of a dead person. Thus, they did not have social value.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, second, so, thus, well, while, for instance, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1506.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 307.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.90553745928 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49725629025 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508143322476 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 471.6 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 1.25165562914 559% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.2699470952 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.846153846 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6153846154 21.698381199 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.5384615385 7.06452816374 149% => OK
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 : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.382091321876 0.272083759551 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.141225243253 0.0996497079465 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0560749666987 0.0662205650399 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.230469615264 0.162205337803 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0297684657313 0.0443174109184 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 13.3589403974 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.97 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.