A coin is fake or real
Both the reading and the lecture is about the reality of a coin found at an archeological site in North America. The writer states that some archeologists believe that the coin is fake and provides three reasons to endorse its idea. However, the professor explains that the coin is real and gainsays each of the reasons mentioned in the reading.
First of all, the passage begins by asserting that the coin was found in North America while remains of the Norse settlement were found in eastern Canada. Due to a huge location difference between the two archeological sites, it is not evident that the coin has any connection with the settlement. In contrast, the professor exerts that many other objects were found with the coin which belonged to native Americans. It shows that they traveled a great distance at that time, therefore they found the coin which was original, and brought it to Maine with them.
Next, the professor further delves into details that Norse did not settle permanently in America and went back to Europe. They would have brought the silver coin with themselves and have taken it back along with their other stuff. That's why no other coin was not found. These claims refute the writer's implication about the absence of further coins at the archeological site, and that the Norse did not bring any silver coins to North America.
Ultimately, the article wraps its argument by declaring the third hypothesis that the Norse knew that the silver coins cannot be used as money in America, so, they did not bring them. On the other hand, the professor rebuts this theory by showing the inaccuracy of the author that these coins were appealing and could be used in jewelry, thus, they were valuable to Americans. Since the Norse knew it, they could have used them for trade prupose. Therefore, the found coin is not fake.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-02-14 | Safa Arshad | 80 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 232, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: That's
...n it back along with their other stuff. Thats why no other coin was not found. These ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 295, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
... was not found. These claims refute the writers implication about the absence of furthe...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, so, therefore, third, thus, while, in contrast, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 22.412803532 152% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1526.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 317.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 4.81388012618 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21953715646 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.38401083211 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.501577287066 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 468.9 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.0375645681 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.733333333 110.228320801 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1333333333 21.698381199 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.93333333333 7.06452816374 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.294118950554 0.272083759551 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.115981902187 0.0996497079465 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100177353318 0.0662205650399 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.189502737899 0.162205337803 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0819284382625 0.0443174109184 185% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.62 12.2367328918 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.67 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.