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 the lecture, the professor states that in 1999, new guidelines and role were applied to improve the science if archaeology. This information directly contradicts facts presented in the reading which states that archaeology field faced countless amount of limitations.
To begin with, the speaker states that the new policy worked in favor of saving archaeologically valuable sites. In fact, construction projects has to be examined first by expert in order to see if the construction sites have a great value. Thus, if the site is valuable workers cannot proceed constructing. In contrast, the reading states that many artifacts were destroyed due to the hub hazard construction projects.
In addition, the professor claims that after conducting the new policy archaeological field started to receive an adequate financial support. This is because companies have to pay for the initial inspection not by the legal officials. Therefore, the sufficient funding allowed scholars to do more research. On the other hand, the reading states that many of archaeological research were not receiving am appropriate fund from the government.
Finally, the lecturer explains how the available of positions has increased from the past years. Indeed, archaeologist these days are involved in every step of the process, from the first step of inspection to the final step of data gathering. Therefore, many positions were available for archaeologist. However, the reading stresses that it was difficult to find a job.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... appropriate fund from the government. Finally, the lecturer explains how the a...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, so, therefore, thus, as to, in addition, in contrast, in fact, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 7.30242825607 14% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 22.412803532 49% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1294.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 234.0 270.72406181 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.52991452991 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91114542567 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08377679227 2.5805825403 119% => OK
Unique words: 141.0 145.348785872 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.602564102564 0.540411800872 112% => OK
syllable_count: 386.1 419.366225166 92% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.2459307433 49.2860985944 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.4285714286 110.228320801 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.7142857143 21.698381199 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.85714285714 7.06452816374 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0602159430225 0.272083759551 22% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0201130856018 0.0996497079465 20% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0284878523293 0.0662205650399 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0336362441581 0.162205337803 21% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0272385558265 0.0443174109184 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.5 12.2367328918 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.29 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.