In 1938 an archaeologist in Iraq acquired a set of clay jars that had been excavated two years earlier by villagers constructing a railroad line. The vessels were about 2,200 years old. Each clay jar contained a copper cylinder surrounding an iron rod. The archaeologist proposed that the vessels were ancient electric batteries and even demonstrated that they can produce a small electric current when filled with some liquids. However, it is not likely that the vessels were actually used as electric batteries in ancient times.
First of all, if the vessels were used as batteries, they would probably have been attached to some electricity conductors such as metal wires. But there is no evidence that any metal wires were located near the vessels. All that has been excavated are the vessels themselves.
Second, the copper cylinders inside the jars look exactly like copper cylinders discovered in the ruins of Seleucia, an ancient city located nearby. We know that the copper cylinders from Seleucia were used for holding scrolls of sacred texts, not for generating electricity. Since the cylinders found with the jars have the same shape, it is very likely they were used for holding scrolls as well. That no scrolls were found inside the jars can be explained by the fact that the scrolls simply disintegrated over the centuries.
Finally, what could ancient people have done with the electricity that the vessels were supposed to have generated? They had no devices that relied on electricity. As batteries, the vessels would have been completely useless to them.
The reading passage and the author both talk about wheather the clay vessels found in Iraq were used as electric batteries or not. The author feels that it would not be possible to use the vessels as electric batteries, while the lecturer believes that it could well be used as electric batteries.
Firstly, according to the reading passage, since no metal wires were found near the vessels, it is very unlikely that the vessels were used as batteries, as batteries requires some electric conductors. However, the lecturer disputes this argument by stating that the vessels were found by the local people, who are not trained archaeologist, so it is possible that they might have not recognized the wires and threw them away.
Secondly, the author mentions that the shape of the vessels are similar to the vessels found in ruins of Seleucia, where the vessels were used for holding scrolls of sacred texts, so the vessels found in Iraq might serve the same purpose. However, the lecturer challenges this argument by saying that the original purpose of the vessels would be to hold scrolls of sacred text, but someone might have discovered that it is also possible to conduct electricity using the vessels.
Thirdly, the author puts forth the idea that since ancient people used no devices that relied on electricity the batteries wouldn't serve any useful purpose to them. However, the lecturer thinks that the shock we get from touching the battery could be interpreted as an invisible power by the ancient people, and it is easy to convince other people regarding the power. Ancient people might have also used electric current to heal the people.
In conclusion, both the lecturer and the author present their views on the clay vessels; However the lecturer challenges each argument stated in the reading passage.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 124, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...hat relied on electricity the batteries wouldnt serve any useful purpose to them. Howev...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, regarding, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, well, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => 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: 1525.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 303.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03300330033 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17215713816 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42094899165 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.471947194719 0.540411800872 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 468.0 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
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: 30.0 21.2450331126 141% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 49.5899183302 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 152.5 110.228320801 138% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.3 21.698381199 140% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.1 7.06452816374 157% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0903900336381 0.272083759551 33% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0438985956386 0.0996497079465 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.039423457216 0.0662205650399 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.057704597759 0.162205337803 36% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0212966478356 0.0443174109184 48% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 13.3589403974 130% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.49 53.8541721854 92% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.49 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 10.498013245 133% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.