United Kingdom's archaelogy
The reading and lecture are both about United Kingdom's archaelogy if there was a problems with studying artifacts in Britain or not. The author of the reading believes that study of cultural artifacts in UK faced many severe problems. The lecturer casts doubt all the arguments made in the article. He is of the opinion that there was a new guidline to foster archaelogical studies in UK.
First of all, the author suggests that in 1950 the building new conctraction developed in Britain and it led to damage archeological values in Britain. The argument is challenged by the professor. He is of the opinion that with a new guideline archeologists checked the construction site before building it and they proserved archeological values.
Second, the writer contends that the potential granter of archelogical studies in Britain was the government. Therefore, it leads archeologists to investigate the most important sites. The lecturer, however rebuts this by mentioning that the construction company paid archeologists. Furthermore, he explains that according to the new guideline the construction companies were responsible to pay archeologists.
Finally, it is stated in the article that it was difficult ot pursue an archeology career in Britain. The writer establishes that there were a very few posion available. The lecturer, on the other hand posits that archeology job was increased in that time rather than before. He put forth the idea that archeology job was paid job and many article were written that boost archeology in the country.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The reading and lecture are both about U...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 85, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a problem' or simply 'problems'?
Suggestion: a problem; problems
...United Kingdoms archaelogy if there was a problems with studying artifacts in Britain or n...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 241, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...facts in UK faced many severe problems. The lecturer casts doubt all the arguments ...
^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...o foster archaelogical studies in UK. First of all, the author suggests that i...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... they proserved archeological values. Second, the writer contends that the pot...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...re responsible to pay archeologists. Finally, it is stated in the article tha...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 68, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[8]
Message: The proper name in singular (ot) must be used with a third-person verb: 'pursues'.
Suggestion: pursues
...in the article that it was difficult ot pursue an archeology career in Britain. The wr...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 341, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun article seems to be countable; consider using: 'many articles'.
Suggestion: many articles
...ea that archeology job was paid job and many article were written that boost archeology in t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, second, so, therefore, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1311.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 247.0 270.72406181 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.30769230769 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96437052324 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09722156019 2.5805825403 120% => OK
Unique words: 134.0 145.348785872 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.542510121457 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 405.9 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.2533010136 49.2860985944 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.4 110.228320801 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4666666667 21.698381199 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.73333333333 7.06452816374 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 4.19205298013 191% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
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: 0.0703406225886 0.272083759551 26% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0242108142711 0.0996497079465 24% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0697382697954 0.0662205650399 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0426117779658 0.162205337803 26% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0738057644375 0.0443174109184 167% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.22 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => 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.