Carved stone balls
Both reading and lecture discuss the usage of carved stone balls. In this set of materials, the author strongly postulates that there are a lot of theories to explain the purpose of carved stone balls, a suspicious piece of art found in Scotland. However, the speaker states that the points mentioned in the reading are not convincing and gainsays each of the arguments.
First and foremost, the author states a theory that carved stone balls were used as some kind of weapon for multiple purposes and explains that the stones were found with holes and grooves in them. So, it was thought that by inserting a string or wire in a hole, it could be used to hit a person. On the contrary, the professor denies this claim by stating that if stone balls were used as weapons as mentioned in the reading, not only their structure would have shown this kind of use but also, the stones were found as broken pieces or with cracked surfaces.
Next, the professor further explains that the shapes, sizes, materials, and densities of the stones were different which indicates, it could not have used as weights for a scale because for a scale the stones should be of specific weight. This claim refuses the author's second point of reading. The professor tells us that the equal size of stones was extracted of approximately 70mm in diameter. So, archaeologists assumpted that these were used as weights for a measuring balance to measure the quantities of various things, for instance, food, to do trade.
Ultimately, the article wraps its argument by asserting the third theory that specific symbols were carved on the stone balls to represent the position of high-rank officials. The author further elaborates, the designs were kind of distinct. However, the speaker in the listening completely refutes this point by showing the inaccuracy of the author that the marks on the stones were very simple to be a stamp. Moreover, in the late Neolithic period, the belongings were buried with the dead person and there is no evidence of carved stone balls in graveyards, So archaeologists should not believe that the patterns on stones are markers.
In conclusion, the author and the speaking do not agree with each other about theories of carved stone balls
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-01-31 | reza_fattahi | 83 | view |
| 2023-01-20 | nikki07hung | 85 | view |
| 2022-12-25 | nikki07hung | 85 | view |
| 2022-12-02 | lilipo | 80 | view |
| 2022-10-26 | _sta | 80 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, third, for instance, in conclusion, kind of, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 30.3222958057 162% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1872.0 1373.03311258 136% => OK
No of words: 382.0 270.72406181 141% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.90052356021 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42095241839 4.04702891845 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55767066494 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 145.348785872 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.479057591623 0.540411800872 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 565.2 419.366225166 135% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.23620309051 170% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.1224522994 49.2860985944 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.8 110.228320801 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.4666666667 21.698381199 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.53333333333 7.06452816374 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 4.33554083885 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.397614590654 0.272083759551 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.149619410256 0.0996497079465 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.135492783442 0.0662205650399 205% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.264397337783 0.162205337803 163% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0974565778564 0.0443174109184 220% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.3589403974 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.44 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.43 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 63.6247240618 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.