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.
Both the reading and lecture discuss about whether field of archeology faced issues while trying to explore the truth. The former argue that by revealing the most of old architecture, there was three possible issues and limitations was arrested in Britain, but latter challenges each of these points.
First of all, the author of the passage asserts that numerous precious artifacts were lost due to construction activities. However, the professor in the lecture contends that it does not hold true because as per 1990 new guidelines it say that before construction, sites often examined by archeologist. For instance, if building area and local sites has such precious artifacts then obviously government will preserve it and exhibited its documents.
Secondly, according to the passage, the expert opined that unless there is funding support, the archaeological research become limited. In contrast, the lecture objects this idea. She supports her argument by presenting the example of archeologist which usually paid by builder, but not by government. If archeologist really keen on research and interest to uncover such sites then, there is not suspicious to get full funding as well as advocacy by government and helping hands.
Finally, the passage claims that there is arduous to have career in archaeology, as a result only amateurs archaeologist involve in research. Nevertheless, like two suggestions before, the professor in her lecture proclaims that this issues is not feasible because there are huge universities which engage in archaeology research. For example, the professor influence students to explore report with data and analysis, consequently which even skyrocketing of this field than ever before.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 236, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'saith', 'says'?
Suggestion: saith; says
...e because as per 1990 new guidelines it say that before construction, sites often e...
^^^
Line 7, column 99, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'amateurs'' or 'amateur's'?
Suggestion: amateurs'; amateur's
...career in archaeology, as a result only amateurs archaeologist involve in research. Neve...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, really, second, secondly, so, then, well, while, for example, for instance, in contrast, as a result, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1470.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 265.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.54716981132 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03470204552 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94490527354 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 145.348785872 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.641509433962 0.540411800872 119% => OK
syllable_count: 447.3 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.4168474327 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.5 110.228320801 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0833333333 21.698381199 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 15.6666666667 7.06452816374 222% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.00984676070155 0.272083759551 4% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.00313422995614 0.0996497079465 3% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.00702069068703 0.0662205650399 11% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.00605997064002 0.162205337803 4% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0061201191214 0.0443174109184 14% => 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: 15.8 13.3589403974 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 53.8541721854 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.91 12.2367328918 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.97 8.42419426049 118% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 63.6247240618 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => 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.