TPO59 Integrate
The Plain of Jars is an archaeological site in the Southeast Asian country of Laos. At the site, hundreds of large stone jars, ranging in size from one to three meters, are scattered across the countryside. These numerous large containers are around 2,000 years old. The original purpose of the jars is unknown, but archaeologists have several theories.
First, the jars may have been used for fermentation. In fermentation, food or drink is left in a sealed container in order to undergo a chemical change. According to some local residents, the jars were originally constructed by a king in order to ferment a special beverage to celebrate a great victory It would be possible to use the jars for fermentation, so the local people's story could be true.
Second, the jars may have been used for water storage. Laos experiences rainy and dry seasons, and finding water during the dry seasons can be difficult. The Plain of Jars is located near ancient trade routes, where traveling traders may have needed drinking water. The jars could have been constructed to collect water during the rainy season so that traders passing through the area would have a source of drinking water during the dry season.
Third, it is possible that the Plain of Jars was an ancient burial site, and the jars were tombs (places where human remains are deposited). Much of the contents of the ancient jars is now gone, but they are large enough to hold human remains. Furthermore, artifacts such as metal tools, jewelry, and glass beads have been found in some of the jars. Burying the dead alongside valuable artifacts was a common practice in ancient cultures. Ancient people may have buried their dead in the jars along with the artifacts
Both the reading and listening talk about the purpose of the jars which are located in the Southeast Asian country of Laos. The author purposes three examples of the theories. However, the lecturer states that despite what the author believes, the Plain of Jars is mysterious and the purpose of those jars is still uncertain. Meanwhile, he refutes the points made by the author.
First, the reading passage mentions that the jars have been used for fermentation. On the other hand, the professor says that the production of stone jars takes lots of time and money. Therefore, it was not an efficient way and people could use clay pots instead, which were easier to make and had the same function.
Secondly, the writer suggests that the jars may have been used to contain the water for the traders. In contrast, the speaker argues that the location of Laos was close to the river and streams. Thus, the travelers probably had access to fresh water and there was no demand for saving water by the jars.
Third, the point of the reading claims that the jars were used as tombs. Nevertheless, the professor notes that the tombs should have coverings to protect the remains of humans and the artifacts from thieves or weather. Additionally, he states that no covering has been found on or near these jars, so it is unlikely that the jars were places the people buried their dead.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, third, thus, while, as to, in contrast, 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: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1147.0 1373.03311258 84% => OK
No of words: 240.0 270.72406181 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.77916666667 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.93597934253 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.3347874933 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 145.348785872 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.575 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 334.8 419.366225166 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.2370008402 49.2860985944 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.2307692308 110.228320801 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4615384615 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.4615384615 7.06452816374 148% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => 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: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.427373443032 0.272083759551 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.13849393674 0.0996497079465 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.10209914804 0.0662205650399 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.243277303888 0.162205337803 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0448801641566 0.0443174109184 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.3 13.3589403974 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 70.13 53.8541721854 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.9 11.0289183223 72% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.44 12.2367328918 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.21 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.