TPO 33 - Integrated Writing Task
In the passage, three theories are proposed for which the carved stone balls are used. In contrast, the lecturer holds an opposing point of view towards these three theories, saying these theories are indeed not convincing.
First of all, it is thought to be truth in the passage that carved stone balls served as weapons harnessed in the process of hunting or fighting because these balls have holes on it. Nevertheless, the professor highly contradicts that if those carved stone balls were weapons, they must have left some external appearance concerned with hunting or fighting. The truth is that they never show some parts broken. That is to say, it rules out the saying that they were weapons in use.
Apart from that, it seems to be plausible that those carved stone balls were utilized as part of a primitive system of weights ad measures since they were paralleled in size. Notwithstanding, the professor presents that although these balls are similar in size, they are distinctively different in mass. The reason for it is the balls are made of various stones. Meanwhile, a wide range stones differ in their densities. For the reasons above, the professor totally disagrees with this theory neither.
Third, in the passage, it is suggested that these carved stone balls serve as social purpose rather than a utilitarian one as they were all elaborated. Whereas, the professor says that if they served as social purpose, they need to be with intriguing design. The stone balls, however, do not display this point. On the contrary, they were pretty simple. Also, it cannot be discovered to be with high-ranking people, while people of that kind used to be buried with their precious personal possessions.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-04-07 | Bobby-Shi02 | 75 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, nevertheless, so, third, whereas, while, apart from, in contrast, first of all, on the contrary, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 10.4613686534 220% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 22.412803532 170% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => 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: 1438.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 286.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02797202797 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11236361783 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56787177933 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545454545455 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 432.0 419.366225166 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 3.25607064018 307% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.2491904077 49.2860985944 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.875 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.875 21.698381199 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.5625 7.06452816374 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.481976320607 0.272083759551 177% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.154970301367 0.0996497079465 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100605574733 0.0662205650399 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.293490254429 0.162205337803 181% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0779133199015 0.0443174109184 176% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.57 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.