TPO 33
In this set of materials, the reading passage states that some carved stone balls are found in Scotland, but archaeologists do not agree about purpose and meaning of these sound; hence, the reading passage provides some possible purposing for stones. On the other hand, the listening section brings into question the reading points by providing different reasons (and examples).
First and foremost, the reading indicates that some of the stone would use as a weapon for hunting because they have holes in the grooves around the ball; in contrast, the lecturer opposes this view by mentioning that weapon stone may have some hand access or generally have sing of wear. But, these stone do not have these. Also, weapon stones must have some crack or piece break off, but these stone are well preserved and do not have damage. So, this theory is not acceptable.
Furthermore, the reading argues that ancient people used these stones for the system of weights and measures because they have the same size; conversely, what the professor believes is different. She points out that the uniform size does not mean uniform weight. Because carved stone balls were made by a different type of stone such as sandstone, and different stones have different density. As a result, these stone do not have the same weight, and they could not use for the system of measures.
Finally, according to the reading, carved stone balls may use as a social purpose as opposed to a particular or utilitarian one. However, the speaker believes that these stone could not be used to sign important social status. They have too simple designs that used to assign high-rank people. She adds that ancient people were burned all positions with high-rank people when they died. But we cannot see stone carved in graves of people. Hence, this proposal is not true.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 48, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...nd foremost, the reading indicates that some of the stone would use as a weapon for hunting...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 276, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'sung'.
Suggestion: sung
...have some hand access or generally have sing of wear. But, these stone do not have t...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, so, well, in contrast, such as, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => 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: 1573.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 309.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09061488673 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1926597562 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.33435874214 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.511326860841 0.540411800872 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 474.3 419.366225166 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.6906974791 49.2860985944 147% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.3125 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3125 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.6875 7.06452816374 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.503156161024 0.272083759551 185% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.16392230679 0.0996497079465 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.106887327479 0.0662205650399 161% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.310924386931 0.162205337803 192% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0781784294487 0.0443174109184 176% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.85 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.5 10.7273730684 163% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.