TPO-25 - Integrated Writing Task
The reading's author contends that the claim that the clay jars found in excavations were used as batteries cannot be accurate for several reasons. The lecturer, however, is not satisfied by the arguments presented in the reading passage. She refutes these arguments due to the following reasons.
First, since the jars were found by the local residents--not the archeologists-- there is a likelihood that they have also found other related objects such as wires and other conductors, and not realizing their significance, they could have simply thrown these objects away. So, the reading's statement that other electrical objects are not found does not prove that these objects did not exist.
Second, the similar jars found in the adjacent areas is not persuasive as well. Scientists have shown that Iron rod along with clay can be used for conducting electricity. There is the possibility that people had originally made the jars for other purposes, but then switched to taking advantage of them in other ways--like using them as batteries. This contradicts the reading's argument that the jars found in nearby cities show that they must have been used merely for holding sacred texts.
Third, there might have been several points in making electrical batteries. For example people could have used these batteries to claim that they possessed magical powers since these devices gave a shock to the person touching them. In addition, the batteries might have been used for medical purposes, the same way the modern medicin uses electricity in some treatments.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 284, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'readings'' or 'reading's'?
Suggestion: readings'; reading's
...mply thrown these objects away. So, the readings statement that other electrical objects...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 371, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'readings'' or 'reading's'?
Suggestion: readings'; reading's
...them as batteries. This contradicts the readings argument that the jars found in nearby ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, second, so, then, third, well, for example, in addition, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 19.0 30.3222958057 63% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1319.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 251.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25498007968 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98032404683 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60404209291 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.545816733068 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 400.5 419.366225166 96% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.4156203743 49.2860985944 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.916666667 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9166666667 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.91666666667 7.06452816374 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.326311741289 0.272083759551 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.119528388805 0.0996497079465 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0699828963442 0.0662205650399 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.191846416006 0.162205337803 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0591785087488 0.0443174109184 134% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.3589403974 103% => 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: 13.17 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => 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.