The reading and the lecture are both about the purpose of the stone jars, which were in a huge number and scattered in the so-called Plain of Jars. While the passage lists three theories to explain the reasons for the stone jars, the professor in the lecture challenges all the theories. He thinks the use is still an uncertain mystery.
Firstly, the reading asserts those stone jars were used for fermentation. Professor from the article casts doubt on the argument. He continues to say that although laws in that time did allow people to use jars made of stone, stone jars were pretty difficult to make. in other words it was a time-consuming and expensive work. Therefore the lecurer thinks stone jars were not necessary and people might prefer clay containers, which were easier made and cheaper than stone jars, for fermentation.
Secondly, the reading claims that since there were rainy and dry seasons in Laos(the Plain of Jars situated in this country), the jars were used to collect water during rainy days and provides water to travelers during dry days. Unfortunately, the lecturer refutes the speculation and points out that there was a river near the Plain of Jars site. As a result, it was convenient for traders to access water from the river, rather than from the jars.
At last, based on the valued objects like metal tools and jewelry found on the site, the reading holds an opinion that the jars were used for tombs. The speakers contradicts the persepective by puting forward that there should be covers over the jars to protect the remains and the invaluable treasures, if the Plain of Jars was indeed a burial site. Nevertheless, according to the speaking, researchers have not found these covers.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 269, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: In
...one jars were pretty difficult to make. in other words it was a time-consuming and...
^^
Line 3, column 328, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...as a time-consuming and expensive work. Therefore the lecurer thinks stone jars were not ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 163, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'contradict'.
Suggestion: contradict
... jars were used for tombs. The speakers contradicts the persepective by puting forward that...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, while, as a result, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1434.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 293.0 270.72406181 108% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89419795222 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13729897018 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49414975547 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.539249146758 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 432.9 419.366225166 103% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.2363329208 49.2860985944 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.428571429 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9285714286 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.71428571429 7.06452816374 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.402239214493 0.272083759551 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126748253119 0.0996497079465 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0805770243441 0.0662205650399 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.234784756356 0.162205337803 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0876854418657 0.0443174109184 198% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => 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: 11.08 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.19 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => 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.