The lecturer states that, although it is seemingly acceptable that the vessels which were excavated in Iraq were unlikely to be used as electric batteries, the three specific evidence provided by the reading passage is not convincing, which suffers from several flaws on various aspects, as is presented below.
The first problem with the theory of these vessels presented in the text is that they were excavated by local people. Therefore, there might be some other materials near the vessels which were not submitted to the archaeologist, since they might be ignored or thrown away by local villagers by mistake. As a result, it is not persuasive to claim in the text that there was any electricity conductor located near the vessels.
Another flaw concerns the use of the copper cylinders. The lecturer points out that the original use of the copper cylinders was to hold scrolls of sacred texts as the text indicates, but there might be some other people who discovered that the copper cylinders could be adapted to other purpose, such as generating electricity when they were filled with liquid. On the contrary, the evidence presented in the text is questionable.
Furthermore, although it is not so clear that in which situation the ancient people could use electricity generated by the vessels as is stated in the text, the lecturer mentions several possible applications of the vessels. She contends that they could generate some shock which could be considered as a kind of invisible power or a magic power. Also, they could be used for healing by doctors because the electricity generated by them could stimulate muscles and release pains.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, if, so, therefore, as to, kind of, such as, as a result, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 10.4613686534 210% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1389.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 273.0 270.72406181 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08791208791 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06481385082 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70234852387 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 145.348785872 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.505494505495 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 436.5 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 21.2450331126 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 86.0299947693 49.2860985944 175% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.9 110.228320801 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.3 21.698381199 126% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.3 7.06452816374 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
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: 0.354147276982 0.272083759551 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.135774126325 0.0996497079465 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0719772431945 0.0662205650399 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.216498765989 0.162205337803 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.037638072348 0.0443174109184 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 13.3589403974 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 53.8541721854 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.91 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 10.7273730684 172% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.498013245 122% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.