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.
The reading passage discusses three problems that are facing archaeological excavation in Britain. However, the speaker in the lecture mentions that rules and guidelines adopted since 1990s were able to resolve these issues.
First and foremost, the writer claims that many valuable artifacts were lost during construction of new buildings. On the other hand, the lecturer brings up the fact that the new laws required examination of the site by archaeologists to decide whether or not it was of archeological interest or value before the construction companies were able to proceed with building. Furthermore, if it was determined to be of value, archaeologists, builders and local government officials were to get together and make a plan to preserve the site either by professional excavation and documentation or by building around it.
Secondly, the author holds that the reduction in government funding has led to less and less sites to be excavated. Nevertheless, the professor in the lecture indicates that according to the enacted rules, the construction firms have to pay the initial examination fees plus any charges for all the work done under the preservation plan. This new source of funding was pivotal since researchers were enabled to study far greater range of sites than they did in the past.
Lastly, the excerpt avers that job opportunities in archaeology were limited since these positions were only provided by the government agencies or universities. In contrast, the lecturer postulates that new paid work was offered for archaeologists, thanks to the new legislations. They were hired to examine sites, draw a conservation plan, do research in a professional and scientific manners and finally collect data and write reports. As a result, the new bills increased the demand for archaeologists.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 246, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...of the site by archaeologists to decide whether or not it was of archeological interest or val...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 89, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun sites is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
... government funding has led to less and less sites to be excavated. Nevertheless, th...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, in contrast, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 5.01324503311 279% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1551.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 287.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.40418118467 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11595363751 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16423502596 2.5805825403 123% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.606271777003 0.540411800872 112% => OK
syllable_count: 478.8 419.366225166 114% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.8161630955 49.2860985944 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.25 110.228320801 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9166666667 21.698381199 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.75 7.06452816374 152% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
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: 0.0225790851001 0.272083759551 8% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0100720636684 0.0996497079465 10% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0158920762927 0.0662205650399 24% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0148578948746 0.162205337803 9% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0109651598251 0.0443174109184 25% => 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: 16.0 13.3589403974 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 53.8541721854 74% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.0289183223 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.34 12.2367328918 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.4 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.