The article states that teh science of arachaeology faced serious problems and limitations in Britian and ptrovides three reasons of support. Conversely, the professor states that new rules and guidlines that have been adopted in 1990 improved the field of archaeology and improved the situation. And she refutes each of the author’s reasons.
First, the reading avers that construction projects lost many valuable artificates. However, the professor opposes this point by saying that according to the law of 1990, any construction site should be examined by archaeologists before the building begin. So, if the site is valuble, posses precious artificated found there, the builder comapny, with the local governemt should work together to preseve this artifcate site. This could be done by either building around the site, or excavating the site properly. The professor concludes this new law in Uk have had ensure the archaelogically valuable sites would not been lost to construction anymore.
Second, the reading claims that many archaeologist felt that financial support for their research was inadequent, since only the government support them. The professor, on the other hand, refutes this point by stating that by the law in 1990, all finanical expenses for arachaelogy research should be paid by construction companies and not by the governemnt. For example, fees of the initial examination for artificates paid by the company. If the site have valuable artificates, the company would pay all the work of archaeologist in order to do their project. As a result, The professor adds, this new income source would have make a wide range of further studies for archaeologists available.
Third, the reading posits that archaeology jobs difficult to be found. The professor disagrees with this point by explaining that the new law that legistaled creates more jobs for archaeology fields that have not existed in the past. The professor provides an example of the excavation process for a site. It would start from examination, do research on te site, then preseve artifcates if they were found, and finally processing the data into the system. All these steps increse the numbers of archaeologists in the UK that could not have been able to find jobs before.
- TPO-15 - Integrated Writing Task The cane toad is a large (1.8 kg) amphibian species native to Central and South America. It was deliberately introduced to Australia in 1935 with the expectation that it would protect farmers' crops by eating harmful insec 78
- TPO-23 - Integrated Writing Task Populations of the yellow cedar, a species of tree that is common in northwestern North America, have been steadily declining for more than a century now, since about 1880. Scientists have advanced several hypotheses expla 80
- TPO-15 - Integrated Writing Task The cane toad is a large (1.8 kg) amphibian species native to Central and South America. It was deliberately introduced to Australia in 1935 with the expectation that it would protect farmers' crops by eating harmful insec 85
- TPO-03 - Integrated Writing Task Rembrandt is the most famous of the seventeenth-century Dutch painters. However, there are doubts whether some paintings attributed to Rembrandt were actually painted by him. One such painting is known as attributed to Rem 70
- x 3
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 171, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...aying that according to the law of 1990, any construction site should be examined...
^^
Line 3, column 567, Rule ID: HAD_VBP[1]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'ensured'.
Suggestion: ensured
...r concludes this new law in Uk have had ensure the archaelogically valuable sites woul...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 567, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'ensured'.
Suggestion: ensured
...r concludes this new law in Uk have had ensure the archaelogically valuable sites woul...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, finally, first, however, if, second, so, then, third, for example, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 44.0 30.3222958057 145% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1917.0 1373.03311258 140% => OK
No of words: 362.0 270.72406181 134% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2955801105 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36191444098 4.04702891845 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92166089371 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 145.348785872 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.530386740331 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 580.5 419.366225166 138% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.6493297265 49.2860985944 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.5 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1111111111 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.05555555556 7.06452816374 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.248456161563 0.272083759551 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0819787176667 0.0996497079465 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0519216162434 0.0662205650399 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147074069823 0.162205337803 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0514345391169 0.0443174109184 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.3589403974 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.46 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.6 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 63.6247240618 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.