In 1938 an archaeologist in Iraq acquired a set of clay jars that had been excavated two years earlier by villagers constructing a railroad line. The vessel was about 2,200 years old. Each clay jay contained a copper cylinder surrounding an iron rod. The archaeologist proposed that vessel were ancient electric batteries and even demonstrated that they can produce a small electric current when filled with some liquids. However, it is not likely that the vessels were actually used as electric batteries in ancient times. First of all, if the vessels were used as batteries, they would probably have been attached to some electricity conductors such as metal wires. But there is no evidence that any metal wires were located near the vessels. All that has been excavated are the vessels themselves. Second, the copper cylinders inside the jars look exactly like copper cylinders discovered in the ruins of Seleucia, an ancient city located nearby. We know that the copper cylinders from Seleucia were used for holding scrolls of sacred texts, not for generating electricity. Since the cylinders found with the jars have the same shape, it is very likely they were used for holding scrolls as well. That no scrolls were found inside the jars can be explained by the fact that the scrolls simply disintegrated over the centuries. Finally, what could ancient people have done with the electricity that the vessels were supposed to have generated? They had no devices that replied on electricity. As batteries, the vessels would have been completely useless to them
The reading reports the finding of clay jars in Iraq and the archeologists claim about their usage as batteries. The passage repudiates the claim, but the professor objected the three reasons stated in the reading.
First, the reading states that there is no evidence of any wire or conductor near the vessels. The professor explains that since clay jars excavated by local people and not archaeologists, it is very likely these wires or conductors are overlooked.
Second, the reading explains a possible usage of jars to hold scrolls but the professor states that although it may use for holding scrolls there is a possibility that these jars adopted to use as batteries.
Third, the reading questions the possible use of electricity for ancient people. However, the professor provides two possible usages. Initially, as electricity make a tingling feeling to human, it is very likely that they use it to convince others they have magical powers. Finally, she also says that they may use it as a healing tool as we use today.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-26 | supergirl20 | 3 | view |
| 2020-01-26 | supergirl20 | 3 | view |
| 2020-01-01 | zztop | 80 | view |
| 2019-12-27 | joyce05 | 3 | view |
| 2019-12-05 | shrijan | 80 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree with following statement? Parents today are more involved in their children's education than were parents in the past. 60
- TPO 41-Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?Teachers were more appreciated and valued by society in the past than they are nowadays.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 70
- The zebra mussel, a freshwater shellfish native to Eastern Europe, has long been spreading out from its original habitats and has now reached parts of North America. There are reasons to believe that this invasion cannot be stopped. 70
- In the past, young people depended too much on their parents to make decisions for them; today young people are better able to make decisions about their own lives. 60
- TPO 30 Integrated 83
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, look, may, second, so, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 14.0 30.3222958057 46% => More preposition wanted.
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: 867.0 1373.03311258 63% => OK
No of words: 172.0 270.72406181 64% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.04069767442 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.62144681703 4.04702891845 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70949570125 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 97.0 145.348785872 67% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.563953488372 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 273.6 419.366225166 65% => 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
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.2880581959 49.2860985944 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.3333333333 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1111111111 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.11111111111 7.06452816374 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.0688197152187 0.272083759551 25% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0318293507445 0.0996497079465 32% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0454642216403 0.0662205650399 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0485431477866 0.162205337803 30% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0312297599294 0.0443174109184 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 45.0 63.6247240618 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.