The United Kingdom (Sometime referred to as Britain) has a long and rich history of human settlement. Traces of buildings, tools, and art can be found from periods going back many thousands of years: from the Stone Age, through the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, the time of the Roman colonization, the Middle Ages, up to the beginnings of the industrial age. Yet for most of the twentieth century, the science of archaeology—dedicated to uncovering and studying old cultural artifacts—was faced with serious problems and limitations in Britain.
First, many valuable artifacts were lost to construction projects. The growth of Britain’s population, especially from the 1950s on, spurred a lot of new construction in British cities, towns, and villages. While digging foundations for new buildings, the builders often uncovered archaeologically valuable sites. Usually, however, they proceeded with the construction and did not preserve the artifacts. Many archaeologically precious artifacts were therefore destroyed.
Second, many archaeologists felt that the financial support for archaeological research was inadequate. For most of the twentieth century, archaeology was funded mostly through government funds and grants, which allowed archaeologists to investigate a handful of the most important sites but which left hundreds of other interesting projects without support. Furthermore, changing government priorities brought about periodic reduction in funding.
Third, it was difficult to have a career in archaeology. Archaeology jobs were to be found at universities or with a few government agencies, but there were never many positions available. Many people who wanted to become archaeologists ended up pursuing other careers and contributing to archaeological research only as unpaid amateurs.
The reading and the lecture argues about studies of old cultural artifacts which has faced many hurdles and limitations in Britain. however, the professor refutes the reading and explains that in 1990 new norms has developed in the United Kingdom, which has improved all the area of problems.
First of all, the author of the reading claims that most precious artifacts have lost during the construction process. It is pointed out that builders frequently lose valuable sites. In contrast, the speaker rebuts this claim by explaining that before any construction can start, the site has to be examined by the archaeologist in order to find if the site is of any interest to archaeology. Followed by the local construction builder can preserve the artifacts and document. This explains how valuable artifact was not destroyed.
Next, the writer contends that financial aid to archaeological research was not sufficient. It is mentioned in the article that for many years the government has supported the funds, but later left hundreds of interesting projects without any support. On the other hand, the lecturer posits this claim by saying that for any upcoming construction has to be a paid service by the construction company itself for the site examination, process, and preservation of the artifacts. This, in fact, was a whole new norm to raise the fund which allowed to the vast research study. This again shows how funding supported.
Finally, the author mentions that finding occupation in archaeology field was difficult. It is mentioned in the article that archaeology job was found with very few government sectors, in-fact they were no vacancy. However, the lecturer contradicts this statement and mentions that archaeologist was paid workers in a different area. For example, expert to examine the site, process the field, research, scientific data record, process data, write report and articles. Furthermore, the speaker says that there has been increasing in the archaeology field in British, now it is the higest ever been.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 133, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: However
...any hurdles and limitations in Britain. however, the professor refutes the reading and ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, so, as to, for example, in contrast, in fact, first of all, 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: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1722.0 1373.03311258 125% => OK
No of words: 327.0 270.72406181 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26605504587 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25242769721 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85629203247 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 145.348785872 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.562691131498 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 507.6 419.366225166 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.682930085 49.2860985944 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.294117647 110.228320801 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2352941176 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.29411764706 7.06452816374 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.040929012494 0.272083759551 15% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0127004776314 0.0996497079465 13% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0167845803413 0.0662205650399 25% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0291362151611 0.162205337803 18% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0198566591014 0.0443174109184 45% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.97 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 63.6247240618 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.