The article and the lecture are both about a silver coin discovered in an american site. The author of the reading believes that the coin is fake and that it was brought to the site for misleading. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article. She thinks that this is a genuine piece of native american belongings.
First of all, the author points out that the large distance between the Norse settlements and Maine supports the fact that this coin is a historical fake. It is mentioned that the distance between the two places is more than one thousand kilometers. The lecturer rebuts this argument. She contends that Native Americans used to travel long distances, and the coin might had been brought to the site during one of their travels.
Second, the author stated that there were no other coins found in the site, which supports the author's belief. This point is challenged by the lecturer. She thinks that Americans who brought the silver coins to the site took them back on their way to Europe.
Finally, the author argues that as experienced explorers as the Native Americans were, they would have discovered that these coins were of no use to them. The lecturer on the other hand, posits that the Native American should had valued the silver due to its beauty. This way the Norse people might had used silver to trade with the Americans
- concern about zebra mussel travel from eastern europe to north america 76
- where to learn a foreign language in your homeland or to learn it in country where it is spoken? 66
- importance of telling the truth 70
- we have to be creative in order to succeed either in school or at work 65
- Should the government help the homeless? 60
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 199, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...was brought to the site for misleading. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made...
^^^
Line 5, column 96, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...s found in the site, which supports the authors belief. This point is challenged by the...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, second, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => 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: 1132.0 1373.03311258 82% => OK
No of words: 239.0 270.72406181 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.73640167364 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.93187294222 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.28096033797 2.5805825403 88% => OK
Unique words: 123.0 145.348785872 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.514644351464 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 345.6 419.366225166 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => 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: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.75491082 49.2860985944 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 80.8571428571 110.228320801 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0714285714 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.28571428571 7.06452816374 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => 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: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.28337139581 0.272083759551 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0968708527956 0.0996497079465 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0744860747237 0.0662205650399 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.184521676314 0.162205337803 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0336109157342 0.0443174109184 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.4 13.3589403974 70% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 71.14 53.8541721854 132% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 11.0289183223 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.92 12.2367328918 81% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.12 8.42419426049 85% => OK
difficult_words: 40.0 63.6247240618 63% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 65.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.5 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.