Archaeology
The reading and the lecture are both about the vessels that had been found in 1938 by an archaeologist in Iraq. The author of the article feels that the vessels cannot be used as electric batteries in ancient times. The lecturer, however, finds the idea dubious and casts doubt on the reasons proposed by the reading passage.
The author argues that the vessels were not used as batteries. Because there is not any evidence that shows some electricity conductors such as metal wires were located near the vessels. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. She claims that the vessels were discovered by local people and they were not trained. So materials might have been overlooked.
Secondly, the reading passage holds the view that the copper cylinders were such as copper cylinders that were discovered in the ruins of Seleucia. The copper cylinders were used for holding scrolls of sacred texts and they were not used for generating electricity. On the contrary, the lecturer underlines the fact that this similarity, does not prove anything. It is possible that the copper cylinders were designed to preserve scrolls.
Finally, the author asserts that ancient people had not any devices that relied on electricity. Therefore, the vessels were useless to them. In contrast, the speaker dismisses this issue due to the fact that the vessels as batteries can produce a mild shock that can show an invisible power. Also, the batteries were used for healing by a mild electric current to relieve pains.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 217, 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.
...as electric batteries in ancient times. The lecturer, however, finds the idea dubio...
^^^
Line 3, column 1, 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.
...ons proposed by the reading passage. The author argues that the vessels were not...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, however, if, look, second, secondly, so, therefore, in contrast, such as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1276.0 1373.03311258 93% => OK
No of words: 251.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08366533865 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98032404683 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52698959591 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 131.0 145.348785872 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.521912350598 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 394.2 419.366225166 94% => 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
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.1344222564 49.2860985944 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 79.75 110.228320801 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.6875 21.698381199 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5 7.06452816374 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 4.33554083885 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => 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: 10.3 13.3589403974 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 53.8541721854 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.