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 vessel was about 2,200 years old. Each clay jay contained a copper cylinder surrounding an iron rod. The archaeologist proposed that vessel 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 jarslook exactly like copper cylinders discovered in the ruins of Seleucia, an ancientcity 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 replied on electricity. As batteries, the vessels would have been completely useless to them.
The reading claims that the archaeologist’s proposal that vessel were ancient batteries is unlikely. However, the lecturer finds all the ideas dubious and provides some evidence to refute them all.
The reading asserts that batteries need to be attached to some electrical conductors such as metal wires but all the things which are excavated are the vessels themselves. In contrast, the professor brings up the idea that the vessels were found by local people, not by trained scientist. The absence of a conductor doesn’t prove anything. The people may have thrown them away because they did not recognize the importance of them.
Furthermore, the reading passage holds the view that the cylinders found with jars are identical to the copper cylinders from Seleucia which were used for holding scrolls of sacred texts. Therefore the cylinders were also used for the same purpose. The absence of scrolls is explained by the fact that the scrolls simply disintegrated over the centuries. Conversely, the speaker dismisses this issue due to the fact that over the time, ancient people could have adapted the cylinders to use for other purposes and the reading's claim does not prove anything.
Finally, the author claims that the vessels could not have any function as a battery for ancient people since they had no device to reply on electricity. On the contrary, the professor underlines the fact that ancient people used to take advantage of electricity to produce a mild shock or some people used it as an invisible and magic power. They also used electricity for hilling or some scholars used it to stimulate muscles to relieve pain.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 189, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...ed for holding scrolls of sacred texts. Therefore the cylinders were also used for the sa...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, finally, furthermore, however, may, so, therefore, in contrast, such as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1387.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 270.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13703703704 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05360046442 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71555242367 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 145.348785872 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548148148148 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 434.7 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => 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: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.4090845912 49.2860985944 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.692307692 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7692307692 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.53846153846 7.06452816374 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.0645581292277 0.272083759551 24% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0233146540643 0.0996497079465 23% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0220566493214 0.0662205650399 33% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0389156973251 0.162205337803 24% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0068296049934 0.0443174109184 15% => 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: 13.2 13.3589403974 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.