The lecturer disputes the suggested author's claims that the discovered clay jars in Iraq did not serve as electric batteries for people. She provides several compelling reasons to casts doubt about the author's claims.
First, according to the text the jars did not serve as batteries because batteries need wires and since no wires were discovered,, then they did not serve this purpose. The lecturer find this idea debatable. she contends by saying indeed they might have been used as batteries because the ruins were discovered by ordinary people. it is possible that people who discovered these ruins noticed some wire, but have not considered their importance.
Second, the lecturer contradicts the fallacy of the passage that the copper cylinders in the jars were used to hold the scrolls. She asserts that indeed they might have served more than one purpose. Theoretically speaking it is possible that a device at some point might be used to serve one thing. However, later in time it might serve another thing. She asserts that it is possible that indeed this might have happened.
Finally, the author argues that there are no need for batteries at that time since archaeologists did not discover any machine that operates on electricity. However, the lecturer confidently refutes this claim by stating that ancient people used electricity to alleviate pain. Moreover, since ancient people believed in the invisible power, they might have used this device to relief pain.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The lecturer disputes the suggested auth...
^^^
Line 3, column 129, Rule ID: DOUBLE_PUNCTUATION
Message: Two consecutive commas
Suggestion: ,
...wires and since no wires were discovered,, then they did not serve this purpose. T...
^^
Line 3, column 182, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'finds'.
Suggestion: finds
...id not serve this purpose. The lecturer find this idea debatable. she contends by sa...
^^^^
Line 3, column 208, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: She
... The lecturer find this idea debatable. she contends by saying indeed they might ha...
^^^
Line 3, column 331, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: It
...ins were discovered by ordinary people. it is possible that people who discovered ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, moreover, second, so, then, another thing
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1248.0 1373.03311258 91% => OK
No of words: 240.0 270.72406181 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.2 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.93597934253 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51545224562 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 123.0 145.348785872 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.5125 0.540411800872 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 391.5 419.366225166 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.0534638553 49.2860985944 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.1428571429 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1428571429 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.07142857143 7.06452816374 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 4.33554083885 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.20729130707 0.272083759551 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0694682179935 0.0996497079465 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0620494340822 0.0662205650399 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131600344063 0.162205337803 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0761842801159 0.0443174109184 172% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.3589403974 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.58 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.7 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 49.0 63.6247240618 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.