tpo 33
The reading specifies myriad theory which shows the meaning and purpose of carved stone balls which were strange artifact found in the Scotland. The professor, however, claims that the theories are dubious and unconvincing and provides three evidence to refute them all.
First, the passage states that people use stone balls for hunting or fighting. Moreover, some carved stone balls have hole in them and many stone have grooves on the surface. Conversely, the lecturer opposes this point reasoning that if the stone were used for the purposes of hunting and fighting, archaeologists should find crack or broken part on them. Since archaeologists did not see any damage on the surface of stone balls, this proof is not right and true.
Second, based on the reading, another goal of stone balls were to measure grain or other foods which were defined as a primitive weight system. Additionally, the fact that the stone balls have a uniform size suggest their use in the weighting system. In contrast, stone balls mass vary from each other and there exist different type of stone because their texture and density were different. Thus, people could not use them for measurement since their size varied a lot.
Third, the author defines social purpose for their owner because they have elaborate designs. Nevertheless, the professor contradict the idea by saying that few of stone balls have complex design and many of them have an extremely simple mark on them. Also, archaeologists search in the grave and did not find this remarkable stone in them and this shows that this stone use for important stature is unlikely.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 118, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'holed'.
Suggestion: holed
... Moreover, some carved stone balls have hole in them and many stone have grooves on ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, first, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, second, so, third, thus, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => 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: 1356.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 269.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04089219331 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0498419064 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44414674657 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.553903345725 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 414.0 419.366225166 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => 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: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.5510293908 49.2860985944 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.307692308 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6923076923 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.53846153846 7.06452816374 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.561793925112 0.272083759551 206% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.21435708549 0.0996497079465 215% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.120862673528 0.0662205650399 183% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.33854581989 0.162205337803 209% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0833499428503 0.0443174109184 188% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.21 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.