The United Kingdom (sometimes 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 reductions 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.
In fact, both the lecture and the passage discuss about presumable problems which are limited archaeologist in the United Kingdom. Although, the passage brings three theories for expressing the issues, the professor puts those hypothesize under the question. According to the professor, none of these applications are convincing.
First, As the passage mentioned, destroying the wealthy artifacts in order to build new modern building is counted as the most effective factor which threaten the preservation of old antique constriction; however, the professor illustrate the enacted laws which obliges people to examine the buildings before starting other works in the civilization projects. This test contributes artifacts to be conserved.
Next, as the passage indicated, financial supports of government are so low that constrain experts to do the bests; in other words, the amount of budget allocated for investigation in this section cause the quality to be declined; nonetheless, the professor doesn't reinforce the reason by emphasizing the fact that funds should be paid by construction companies also it isn't duty of governments
Finally, the passage declares the thought that experts who have studies archaeology can't find relative job easily; therefore, many people albeit like to increase their knowledge in this field, they would rather to choose another major in order to be more successful; nevertheless, the professor doesn’t validate the claim by adding the fact that archaeologist have been hired in all stages
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 259, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...be declined; nonetheless, the professor doesnt reinforce the reason by emphasizing the...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 371, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
... paid by construction companies also it isnt duty of governments Finally, the p...
^^^^
Line 13, column 85, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...at experts who have studies archaeology cant find relative job easily; therefore, ma...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, nonetheless, so, therefore, in fact, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 7.30242825607 14% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 22.412803532 54% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1321.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 232.0 270.72406181 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.69396551724 5.08290768461 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.90276135726 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00150762257 2.5805825403 116% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.659482758621 0.540411800872 122% => OK
syllable_count: 393.3 419.366225166 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 6.0 13.0662251656 46% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 38.0 21.2450331126 179% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 261.540096777 49.2860985944 531% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 220.166666667 110.228320801 200% => OK
Words per sentence: 38.6666666667 21.698381199 178% => OK
Discourse Markers: 17.5 7.06452816374 248% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0389520185428 0.272083759551 14% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0201153322469 0.0996497079465 20% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0207269831523 0.0662205650399 31% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0228995701702 0.162205337803 14% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00653020525086 0.0443174109184 15% => 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: 24.7 13.3589403974 185% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 24.45 53.8541721854 45% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 19.3 11.0289183223 175% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.31 12.2367328918 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.69 8.42419426049 127% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 17.2 10.498013245 164% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.