tpo
The passage addresses carved stone balls found in different locations in Scotland and provides three different theories on their purpose and meaning. The professor, however, does not agree with any of these theories. She states that none of the explanations are convincing.
First, the passage explains the theory that these balls were used as weapons in hunting or fighting. The professor refutes this theory and believes that there is evidence against it. She explains that if these balls were used as weapons, signs of such use must be observed. She presents examples of other weapons found in different sites and states that due to the fact that the surface of these balls were well preserved and no signs of wear, such as cracks and broken pieces, were observed, this theory does not explain the purpose of these balls appropriately.
The second theory provided in the article is that these balls were used in weight and measurement systems, since they are all uniform in size. According to the professor, this theory is not convincing either. She explains that despite the fact that the sizes of the balls are almost the same, their weights are not. The fact that they were made of different stones, and different stones do not have the same density, indicates that these balls have different weights and therefore could not be used in weighing systems.
In the passage, social purpose is considered to be the third, and the last theory. However, the professor opposes the explanations given for this theory. She says that, firstly, some of these stones have very simple designs; too simple to be the sign of social status of people. Secondly, none of these balls were found in graves. As, in ancient times, whenever somebody died, they were buried with their possessions, it is unlikely that these balls had a social purpose and meaning.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 127, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: uniform
...measurement systems, since they are all uniform in size. According to the professor, this theor...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, well, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 10.4613686534 201% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 22.412803532 178% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1540.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 310.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96774193548 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.40091033724 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.474193548387 0.540411800872 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 468.0 419.366225166 112% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.7359808927 49.2860985944 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.25 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.375 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.125 7.06452816374 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => 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: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => 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: 11.55 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
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.