TPO 25
The author believes that although ancient vessels found in Iraq can produce electricity in a condition, they were probably not batteries. The lecturer, however, has the opposite point of view. She explains why the author is not right about his points, and that his points are not adequate and convincing.
First, the author states that no electricity conductors, such as metal wires, were found near the vessels. On the contrary, the lecturer refutes this point asserting that since local people excavated the vessels, they could have neglected a possible conductor because of lack of knowledge in excavation.
Second, the author claims that similar vessels were found in a nearby site, which were used for holding scrolls of text, thereby, these vessels were probably used for the same purpose. On the other hand, the lecturer opposes the author's opinion by arguing that the vessels could be originaly made for holding scrolls, but later were adopted to produce electricity after ancient people discovered their potential to produce electricity
Finally, the author suggests that batteries were useless to ancient people providing that they had no electricity powered devices. In contrast, the lecturer counters the author proposing that there are possible merits of battery for ancient people. In this regard, they might have used batteries to display magical powers, and cure ache and pain.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 230, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...he other hand, the lecturer opposes the authors opinion by arguing that the vessels cou...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, second, in contrast, such as, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => 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: 1183.0 1373.03311258 86% => OK
No of words: 220.0 270.72406181 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.37727272727 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.85128510684 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47908190817 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 127.0 145.348785872 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.577272727273 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 366.3 419.366225166 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => 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: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => 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: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 90.7774377799 49.2860985944 184% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.444444444 110.228320801 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4444444444 21.698381199 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.4444444444 7.06452816374 148% => 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 : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.403535252971 0.272083759551 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.156180871558 0.0996497079465 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.116555937852 0.0662205650399 176% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.238023641997 0.162205337803 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0653282832032 0.0443174109184 147% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 13.3589403974 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 53.8541721854 72% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.22 12.2367328918 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.13 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.