tpo25
Both the reading and the lecture are about clay jars that every jar included a copper cylinder surrounding an iron red. These ancient materials found by local people in Iraq. The archaeologists have suggested that this copper cylinder – when there was water or liquid in the jar- may have produced electricity. The reading provides three reasons to refute this opinion. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article and finds all arguments dubious.
First of all, the author of reading declares that there were not conductors like metal wires which could have been attached to jars because for using jars as batteries, these types of materials is necessary. This point is challenged by the professor. She points out that since the clay jars had been discovered by local villagers and they had not been trained; consequently, local people may have seen some conductors during excavation; however, due to lack of knowledge, they threw out the conductors.
Secondly, the article contends that copper cylinders are similar to version of their Seleucia peer in a near site. Since Seleucia people were applying these cylinders for holding scrolls; hence, that same function could have been employed in the aforementioned site; conversely, the lecturer believes that in earlier times, this cylinder may have been used for scrolls then with developing technology, people could discover other advantages of copper calendars such as producing electricity and finally they adopted them.
Lastly, the reading passage states that ancient people could not use this electricity and these vessels were useless for them. This argument is rebutted by the professor. She proposes that when people were touching the vessels, it was creating a shock; subsequently; some humans abused from this electricity for showing their power or magical forces. Besides, in ancient eras, electricity was appropriate for healing and even treating of legs, arm and other parts of body.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 371, 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.
...s three reasons to refute this opinion. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made...
^^^
Line 6, column 95, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[8]
Message: The proper name in singular (Seleucia) must be used with a third-person verb: 'peers'.
Suggestion: peers
...re similar to version of their Seleucia peer in a near site. Since Seleucia people w...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, consequently, conversely, finally, first, hence, however, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
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: 1665.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 313.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31948881789 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61688842193 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.568690095847 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 506.7 419.366225166 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 3.25607064018 307% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 94.9788375999 49.2860985944 193% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.928571429 110.228320801 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3571428571 21.698381199 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.57142857143 7.06452816374 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.449795916447 0.272083759551 165% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.127791940286 0.0996497079465 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.10561335516 0.0662205650399 159% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.25757726486 0.162205337803 159% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0475327246878 0.0443174109184 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.3589403974 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.91 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.