Based on the given materials, the article as well as the lecture discusses limitations against having successful studying ancient cultural artifacts of United Kingdom, which is well-known for its rich history from the stone age till beginnings of industrial age. The author states that there are several viable problems regarding these restrictions. That being said, the lecturer provides new rules and guidelines to repudiate this claim.
Initially, the author says that during lots of construction projects due to both population's growth and ignoring archaeological values by builders, several artifacts have been destroyed. However, the speaker explains that new rules and guidelines cover this region. Based on them, construction sites should be examined by archaeological experts to find out whether the sites are archaeologically sufficient for constructing or not. In addition, there is a next step in which builders, archaeologists and local government officials try to make plan for preserving artifacts before constructions start.
Second, the writer proclaims that allocated budget to archaeological academic research by government was not enough to cover investigating all essential artifacts. Yet again, the lecturer underscores that based on modern guidelines, funding these researches are owed to construction companies, not government, owing to the fact that archaeologists are hired by those companies to examine the sites. It results in having more money for the experts than the past, which allows them to cover investigating more artifacts.
The final point of contention between the reading and the listening passage is deficient in number of expert archaeologists. The author thinks that since there are not many open positions in archaeology, several people will attend to other careers, and the archaeological research will not have any contribution by experts. On the other hand, the speaker explains that all stages of the modern construction process need experts such as examining the sites, planning before constructions, process's data analyzing and reporting. Thus, the number of professional archaeologists is increased, which led to having the highest number of archaeologists in compared to the past.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 82, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'populations'' or 'population's'?
Suggestion: populations'; population's
...ts of construction projects due to both populations growth and ignoring archaeological valu...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 80, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: deficient
...he reading and the listening passage is deficient in number of expert archaeologists. The author th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, regarding, second, thus, well, in addition, such as, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 30.3222958057 158% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1912.0 1373.03311258 139% => OK
No of words: 332.0 270.72406181 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.75903614458 5.08290768461 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.2685907696 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21956815472 2.5805825403 125% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 145.348785872 134% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.58734939759 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 571.5 419.366225166 136% => 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: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.7659326173 49.2860985944 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.571428571 110.228320801 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7142857143 21.698381199 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.14285714286 7.06452816374 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0637025302389 0.272083759551 23% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0181633772322 0.0996497079465 18% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0484878846649 0.0662205650399 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.045368491523 0.162205337803 28% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0679122020394 0.0443174109184 153% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.6 13.3589403974 132% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 53.8541721854 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.0289183223 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.42 12.2367328918 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.63 8.42419426049 114% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 63.6247240618 160% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => 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.