In the lecture, the professor discusses why the three reasons presented in the reading passage on the function of carved stone balls are not plausible.
To begin with, the reading claims that the ball could be used as hunting or fighting tools, since a cord can be attached to them. However, the speaker refutes this by saying that, typically, hunting tools from the Neolithic period show signs of wear, which is lacked in carved stone balls.
Secondly, whilst the second hypothesis believes that the uniform shape and size of balls might suggest their function as weighing tools, the lecturer rules out this possibility by asserting that despite the similarities in size, the balls differ in masses, due to the various densities of stone used to make the balls.
Finally, the balls can not be the symbol of social status of their owners. Ancient people tended to be buried with their possessions, as the instructor points out, but the balls were never found in such graves. In addition, many balls are simple in design, rather than having complex patterns. This is in contrary to the statement that balls are likely to present their owners' social status.
In conclusion, based on the analysis given by the speaker, the theories that the balls can be weapons, weighing tools and symbol of social status simply do not stand.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, second, secondly, so, in addition, in conclusion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1112.0 1373.03311258 81% => OK
No of words: 224.0 270.72406181 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.96428571429 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.86867284054 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.36173794534 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 131.0 145.348785872 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.584821428571 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 321.3 419.366225166 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => 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: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.5306095438 49.2860985944 139% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.555555556 110.228320801 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8888888889 21.698381199 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.0 7.06452816374 142% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 4.33554083885 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0628345262012 0.272083759551 23% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0284169408188 0.0996497079465 29% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0202320645419 0.0662205650399 31% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0317431171476 0.162205337803 20% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0215103492274 0.0443174109184 49% => 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: 14.4 13.3589403974 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 64.04 53.8541721854 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.99 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.