Both the reading and the lecture are taking about theories of the purpose of carved stone balls, but the speaker disagrees with all the three perspective theories made in the reading because none of them are convincing.
To begin with, the reading claims that the carved stone balls are weapons for hunting or fighting. However, the professor objects it with a new proof that the balls should have signs of wear like axes. But the surface of carved stone balls are well persevered which shows there are little or no damages thus it challenges this theory heavily.
Furthermore, according to the passage, the carved stone balls can be used as primitive system of weights and measures. On the contrary, the speaker asserts that though they have similar sizes, the masses are in fact different because they are made of different types of stones with different density. Thus, the carved stone balls cannot be used in weighing and measuring system.
Finally, the theory that they are served as social purpose is opposed by the speaker for many evidences which are inconsistent with it. Though some patterns are elaborate, many others are too simple. What's more, we haven't found any carved stone balls in tombs or graves which can show the high-rank of a person. Therefore, it is unlikely that the balls are personal possessions that marked a person’s status within the community.
To sum up, the reading says that it could be used as weapon, measuring object or status symbols which are all refuted by the speaker with reasonable arguments.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 201, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: What's
... elaborate, many others are too simple. Whats more, we havent found any carved stone ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 216, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
...y others are too simple. Whats more, we havent found any carved stone balls in tombs o...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, furthermore, however, if, so, therefore, thus, well, in fact, on the contrary, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 5.01324503311 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1296.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 259.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00386100386 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01166760082 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43992228014 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 140.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.540540540541 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 397.8 419.366225166 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => 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: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.8936318417 49.2860985944 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.0 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5833333333 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.75 7.06452816374 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.444942484734 0.272083759551 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.16905422828 0.0996497079465 170% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0815534233753 0.0662205650399 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.228276540127 0.162205337803 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.112798855679 0.0443174109184 255% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.