Tpo25
In this set of materials both of the reading and the professor speak about discovered clay jars in Iraq. These vessels included a copper cylinder with an iron pod that the archaeologists suggested that they used to produce electricity as batteries. The readings provides three reasons to refute this hypothesis, however the professor finds all arguments unconvincing. The information the professor provides contradicts the fact outlined in the text.
First, the reading contends that if battery theory was correct, therefore these vessels must have had some conductors like metal wires, however any conductors did not find, on the other hand the professor claims that unfortunately the clay jars were discovered by local people not archaeologist; hence because of they did not have enough information about extracted materials, it is plausible that such conductors may be have discarded.
Second, the author of reading proposes that at the same time copper cylinders were being used in Iraq's neighborhood by Seleucia for holding scroll. It goes without saying that Iraq was affected from them and these copper cylinders used as the same function; however the professor declares that it may be true but later ancient people could have discovered another using of these cylinders as providing electricity after mixing with iron pod.
Moreover, the reading passage believes that these batteries could not have had worthwhile function for ancient people; however the professor rejects this assertion. The lectures expresses that since this exploration was an invisible power for them and it could create a shock after handing to it, consequently it is obvious that elites or monks could have used it as a magic power and also ancient doctors may have used these batteries for treating their patients.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
The readings provides three reasons
The reading provides three reasons
hence because of they did not have enough information
hence because they did not have enough information
hence because of that, they did not have enough information
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 24 in 30
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 9 12
No. of Words: 284 250
No. of Characters: 1490 1200
No. of Different Words: 155 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.105 4.2
Average Word Length: 5.246 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.678 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 106 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 88 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 62 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 31.556 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 18.319 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.42 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.42 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.152 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 263, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'provide'.
Suggestion: provide
... electricity as batteries. The readings provides three reasons to refute this hypothesis...
^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 303, Rule ID: BECAUSE_OF_I[1]
Message: Probable usage error. Use 'because they' instead.
Suggestion: because they
...y local people not archaeologist; hence because of they did not have enough information about e...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 178, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'express'.
Suggestion: express
...or rejects this assertion. The lectures expresses that since this exploration was an invi...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, hence, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, therefore, while, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1518.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 284.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34507042254 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73827775191 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.556338028169 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 468.0 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => OK
Sentence length: 31.0 21.2450331126 146% => OK
Sentence length SD: 111.343312926 49.2860985944 226% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 168.666666667 110.228320801 153% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.5555555556 21.698381199 145% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.6666666667 7.06452816374 179% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
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: 0.374838865713 0.272083759551 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.153554617168 0.0996497079465 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.108772949954 0.0662205650399 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.225479342682 0.162205337803 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0580849505959 0.0443174109184 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.5 13.3589403974 146% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.01 53.8541721854 74% => It means the essay is relatively harder to read.
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.0289183223 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.34 12.2367328918 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.07 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 10.498013245 137% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.