he cave paintings of Lascaux (in southwestern France) date to around 15,000 B.C.E. and are among the finest examples of prehistoric art known. Ever since the paintings were discovered, scholars have puzzled over their purpose. According to one widely discussed interpretation, the paintings were made to ensure a successful hunt. Several considerations support this view. In the first place, there is the animal subject matter of the paintings. The cave images are almost exclusively of large mammals. These animals include bison, wild horses, and now-extinct aurochs (wild cattle), which are known to have been hunted by the Paleolithic people who created the paintings. A number of the animals are shown wounded by arrows and spears. There are also depictions of what appear to be the seasonal migrations of these animals that would have been very important to prehistoric hunters. Second, the depictions of humans in the cave paintings include human figures that appear to have animal heads. These could be hunters: hunters in some traditional cultures are known to disguise themselves with animal heads so that they are not recognized by the animals they are hunting. Third, many cultures hold the belief that by depicting an event one can bring about its reality. Throughout history—prehistoric, ancient, and modern—images have been regarded as more than mere decorative representations; they are seen as having magical power to affect reality. Thus, it is reasonable to suppose that the hunters who created the Lascaux cave paintings believed that by painting successful hunts, they were ensuring that real hunts would be successful.
The reading lists out three considerations to support that the cave paintings were created to ensue hunting successfully. However, the lecture points out that none of them are convincing.
Firstly, the reading cotents that the animals painted, which were revealed on wounded by spears and arrows, and depictions about how they migrate seasonally make the theory more convincing. The speaker acknowledges that there are paintings about hunted animals, however, only a friction of these paintings are about hunted animals. In this way, the theory is weakened.
Secondly, the reading says that humans wearing animals heads, which are believed to mask themselves for hunting, supports the theory. But the listening also disputes this by saying that the human figures with the animal heads are shown in a horizontal position on their backs like they were sleeping rather than standing up. And the figures are not presented with other images that might help us interpret them.
Thirdly, the reading thinks that paintings depicting successful hunts, which have magical power to affect reality in some people's belief, express their hope for hunting successfully. Nonetheless, to reject this hypothesis, the speaker thinks that these paintings might not for ensuring hunting. For example, in some people's belief, their ancestors' spirits lies among these animals. In order to communicate with their ancestors, they depicted these images to hold ceremonies.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 123, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
...magical power to affect reality in some peoples belief, express their hope for hunting ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 317, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
... ensuring hunting. For example, in some peoples belief, their ancestors spirits lies am...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => 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: 1233.0 1373.03311258 90% => OK
No of words: 223.0 270.72406181 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.52914798206 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.86434787811 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5914782299 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 133.0 145.348785872 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.596412556054 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 363.6 419.366225166 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.7569075865 49.2860985944 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.75 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5833333333 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.16666666667 7.06452816374 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.107990003804 0.272083759551 40% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0386940356629 0.0996497079465 39% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0359481435408 0.0662205650399 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0659167953897 0.162205337803 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0265312779612 0.0443174109184 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.79 12.2367328918 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.27 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27 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.