TPO44
The professor revises the idea presented in the passage that the silver coin found at a Native American archaeological site is a historical fake and refutes each of the points made in the passage.
First of all, the reading passage states that there was a great distance between Native American site and Norse settlements in eastern Canada. The professor rejects this idea by explaining that many other objects have been found in the site that had been brought to it from far distances. In fact, Native Americans travelled great distances and brought all those objects back with themselves. Thus, the first theory has some deficiencies regarding the purpose of the reading passage.
Secondly, the professor's idea contradicts the second reason mentioned in the passage that there have not been any other ancient coins on the site. She clarifies that the Norse did not have permanent settlements in North America. Actually, they used to travel back to Europe from time to time and pack up valuable things while travelling. Thus, they brought coins with them to North America but took them back when they travelled to Europe again. Therefore, the second theory does not seem to be a good response to the main point of the passage.
Finally, the author suggests that Native North Americans did not perceive the silver coins as money and the Norse would have known this fact. Conversely, the professor holds a different view. She believes that the North American used to value unusual objects. Due to the fact that the silver coins were interesting and beautiful, it was likely to be used in pieces of jewelry and be traded by the North Americans. So, the third theory is not convincing, too.
- If you were asked to send one thing representing your country to an international exhibition what would you choose Why Use specific reasons and details to explain your choice 88
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is more important for students to understand ideas and concepts than it is for them to learn facts. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 73
- TPO51 3
- TPO42 85
- TPO52 3
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 15, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...of the reading passage. Secondly, the professors idea contradicts the second reason ment...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, conversely, finally, first, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thus, while, in fact, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => 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: 1409.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 285.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94385964912 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49968911579 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.515789473684 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 435.6 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.9042241774 49.2860985944 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.9333333333 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.8 7.06452816374 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.513628350369 0.272083759551 189% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.149119903252 0.0996497079465 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105861855949 0.0662205650399 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.292328046362 0.162205337803 180% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0346247236248 0.0443174109184 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 13.3589403974 85% => 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: 11.37 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.52 8.42419426049 89% => OK
difficult_words: 53.0 63.6247240618 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => 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.