Carved stone balls are a curious type of artifact found at a number of locations in Scotland. They date from the late Neolithic period, around 4,000 years ago. They are round in shape; they were carved from several types of stone; most are about 70 mm in diameter; and many are ornamented to some degree. Archaeologists do not agree about their purpose and meaning, but there are several theories.
One theory is that the carved stone balls were weapons used in hunting or fighting. Some of the stone balls have been found with holes in them, and many have grooves on the surface. It is possible that a cord was strung through the holes or laid in the grooves around the ball. Holding the stone balls at the end of the cord would have allowed a person to swing it around or throw it.
A second theory is that the carved stone balls were used as part of a primitive system of weights and measures. The fact that they are so nearly uniform in size – at 70 mm in diameter – suggests that the balls were interchangeable and represented some standard unit of measure. They could have been used as standard weights to measure quantities of grain or other food, or anything that needed to be measured by weight on a balance or scale for the purpose of trade.
A third theory is that the carved stone balls served a social purpose as opposed to a practical or utilitarian one. This view is supported by the fact that many stone balls have elaborate designs. The elaborate carving suggests that the stones may have marked the important social status of their owners.
There is a heated debate on the possible major functions of the carved stone balls. The author in the reading passage explores three assumptions, while the professor, in the lecture, contradicts all these possibilities respectively by using three specific points as supports.
First, the author assumes the stone balls were weapons used in hunting or fighting because of holes and grooves on their surface, while the professor argues that common weapons always show signs of wear, such as pieces broken off. However, carved stone balls are perfectly preserved, with no damage, which means these stone balls cannot be used as weapons.
Second, even though the reading passage suggests the stone balls were primitive weighing and measuring system for their uniform size, the professor proves this claim is indefensible by pointing out the stones are made of different types of stones, with different density, resulting in varies in masses. Thus, the balls could not function as a weighing system.
Third, despite the statement in the reading passage that the stone balls served a social purpose owing to their elaborate designs, the professor contends that some designs on balls' surface are intricate, but some are too simple to represent any symbols. For another, none of the stone balls are found in tombs or graves, which means they are not to mark high ranking people's status.
- Are government doing good in educating people to pay attention to the importance of the food nutrition and healthy eating? 90
- Do you agree or disagree? It is impossible to always be completely honest with your friends. 80
- One of the threats to endangered sea turtle species is the use of nets by commercial shrimp-fishing boats. When turtles get accidentally caught in the nets, they cannot rise to the surface of the ocean to breathe, and they die. Some people suggest that th 85
- Some people like to buy and eat their meals at restaurants frequently, while others like to do this at home. Which do you prefer? Why? 90
- Starting in the 1960s and continuing until the 1980s, sailors in Russian submarines patrolling the North Alantic and Arctic Ocean would occasionally hear strange sounds. These underwater noises reminded the submarine crews of frog croaks, so they called t 90
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, second, so, third, thus, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 22.412803532 45% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1171.0 1373.03311258 85% => OK
No of words: 223.0 270.72406181 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25112107623 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.86434787811 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43436225079 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.614349775785 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 351.9 419.366225166 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 13.0662251656 61% => 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: 81.1634154037 49.2860985944 165% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.375 110.228320801 133% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.875 21.698381199 128% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06452816374 113% => 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 : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.18117815398 0.272083759551 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0812788005233 0.0996497079465 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0503360301911 0.0662205650399 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102710044438 0.162205337803 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0295114413021 0.0443174109184 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 13.3589403974 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 53.8541721854 82% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.47 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.65 8.42419426049 115% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.498013245 122% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.