TPO 25
Located in Iraq, a set of jars have been discovered in which a copper cylinder hemming in an iron rod. The jars were supposed to be used as electric batteries by the archaeologist, however many critics reject this idea, as the passage puts it. It provides three reasons of support. The lecturer, on the other hand, asserts that these reasons are not convincing at all and repudiates all the author's explanations by three concrete pieces of evidence.
First, the passage goes on to mention that while the vessels were used as batteries, no conductors such as metal wires were found adjacent to the vessels, either. Moreover, the professor rejects the author's view and illustrates the idea that the vessels were discovered by local people, not archaeologists. As a result, conductors may be either overlooked or thrown away because local people did not understand the importance of wires.
Second, that similarity between the inside of the vessels and copper cylinders found in the ruins of Seleucia can explain that the vessels were used for keeping scrolls of sacred texts, based on what the passage claims, is refuted by the professor. She points out that although the shape of both jars was similar, they may have different functions. In fact, the jars perhaps first had been used in order to keep texts, but then after it could be used for another purpose such as a battery. Perhaps, people combined an iron rod with clay to produce electricity.
Third, the passage states that batteries were useless even the vessels used for the electricity, whereas the professor casts serious doubt on this point of view by saying that people may have used electricity for its shocking feature. In addition, both the magical power and healing feature to relieve pain can be two of applications of electric batteries in the past.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... by three concrete pieces of evidence. First, the passage goes on to mention th...
^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ot understand the importance of wires. Second, that similarity between the insi...
^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... rod with clay to produce electricity. Third, the passage states that batteries...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, look, may, moreover, second, so, then, third, whereas, while, in addition, in fact, such as, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1518.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 306.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96078431373 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18244613648 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62385537476 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.56862745098 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 469.8 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.8340737094 49.2860985944 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.769230769 110.228320801 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5384615385 21.698381199 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.3846153846 7.06452816374 161% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.489262120468 0.272083759551 180% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.148109314879 0.0996497079465 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103724044702 0.0662205650399 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.272874080451 0.162205337803 168% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0727012031086 0.0443174109184 164% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.6 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.