TPO25
Both the author and the lecturer are discuss about set of clay jars which found in Iraq by villagers and contained a copper cylinder. The author is of the opinion that the hypothesis about electrical applications of these vessels such as using as battery is not logical whereas the lecturer cast a shadow of doubt on what the author states in light of some evidences.
To being with, the author argues that if scholars suppose that these vessels are battery, some conductors like metal wires must be connected to them and absence of wires can reject this theory. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that due to the fact that vessels excavated by local individuals, these wires probably had destroyed or overlooked by ill-equipped and unskilled people before scientists observed the vessels.
Another point mentioned by the author is that numerous jars like what were found in Iraq, were excavated in another regions such as ruins of Seleucia and nowadays, we know that their application is holding scrolls of sacred text. Having said that, the lecturer repudiates this one too and points out had people imagined these vessels just as holder in ancient time, the author's hypothesis would have been correct. Nevertheless, people adapted them for other purposes.
Writer of the article finally draws attention to how these vessels are useless as final point in support of their idea about these jars. Yet again, the lecturer rejects the author's view by clarifying that they could produce mild shock when a person touch them and if so, they could provide some levels of power. S/he states that acquiring magic power coupled with their applications for doctors can support their usefulness.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 38, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'discussed'.
Suggestion: discussed
Both the author and the lecturer are discuss about set of clay jars which found in I...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 4, Rule ID: BEING_BEGIN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'begin'?
Suggestion: begin
... states in light of some evidences. To being with, the author argues that if scholar...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 304, Rule ID: HAD_VBP[1]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'peopled'.
Suggestion: peopled
...udiates this one too and points out had people imagined these vessels just as holder i...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, finally, if, look, nevertheless, so, whereas, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => 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: 1425.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 284.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0176056338 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45307831825 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.584507042254 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 439.2 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => 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: 28.0 21.2450331126 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 56.7786051255 49.2860985944 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.5 110.228320801 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.4 21.698381199 131% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5 7.06452816374 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.294405647591 0.272083759551 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.104670488856 0.0996497079465 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0506787714898 0.0662205650399 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167536318371 0.162205337803 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0604834161649 0.0443174109184 136% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 13.3589403974 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.52 53.8541721854 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.08 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 10.7273730684 172% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.