TPO-33 - Integrated Writing Task
The article brings three theories for revealing the application of stone balls. Nonetheless, the professor puts those factors under question. According to the professor, none of these applications are convincing.
The first usage brought by the passage is that stone balls were weapons, which used for hunting or fighting in the past. However, the lecturer argues that if stone balls were weapons, it was natural that some of them would be cracked or broken off. But there is not any damage on them.
Another theory for stone walls is that they were systems of weights and measures. In contrast, the professor asserts that these stones are not uniform in size. For example, some of them have different weight and density, which shows that they have been made of diverse stones such as green ones. Moreover, in some of them, even 2 balls are not in the same weight. As a result, they could not be a suitable device for measuring.
The final contradiction between the article and the lecturer is whether stone balls served a social purpose or not. The passage agrees that stone balls show the important social status of their owners but the professor contradicts this idea by two reasons. First, the shape of the balls is too simple to prove that they are for social status. Moreover, most of the time high-ranking people are buried with their possession, but no stone balls have been found in their graves.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 144, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: uniform
...essor asserts that these stones are not uniform in size. For example, some of them have differe...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 62, Rule ID: THE_NN_AND_THE_NN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'are'?
Suggestion: are
...on between the article and the lecturer is whether stone balls served a social pur...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, moreover, nonetheless, so, for example, in contrast, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1176.0 1373.03311258 86% => OK
No of words: 241.0 270.72406181 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.87966804979 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94007293032 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.41135608688 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.56846473029 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 351.9 419.366225166 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.5147937043 49.2860985944 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 78.4 110.228320801 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.0666666667 21.698381199 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.53333333333 7.06452816374 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => 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: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.450583747063 0.272083759551 166% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.143780935409 0.0996497079465 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.084278387378 0.0662205650399 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.25485532476 0.162205337803 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.118210831567 0.0443174109184 267% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.6 13.3589403974 72% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.73 12.2367328918 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.97 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 63.6247240618 85% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.