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 doesn't agree with the article. It states that the points mentioned in the reading are not convincing and gainsays each of the arguments.
First and foremost, the author states its one theory that carved stone balls were used as some kind of weapon for multiple purposes. It explains that the stones were found with holes and grooves in them. It was thought that by attaching it with a string or wire, it could be used to throw it towards 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, their structure would have shown this kind of use. Moreover, 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 that they 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. It states that the stones extracted were uniform in size of approximately 70mm in diameter. So, it was assumpted that these were used as weights for a measuring balance to measure the quantities of various things, for instance, food, for the purpose of 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. It 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 too simple to indicate 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 it can not be believed that the patterns on the stones were 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 |
- Archaeological artifacts 83
- Pluto as a planet 68
- 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 Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet The pa 73
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Teachers were more appreciated and valued by society in the past than they are nowadays Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 70
- Steller s sea cow 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 269, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...found in Scotland. However, the speaker doesnt agree with the article. It states that ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 276, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , s
...ic weight. This claim refuses the author,s second point of reading. It states that...
^^
Line 5, column 345, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: uniform
...t states that the stones extracted were uniform in size of approximately 70mm in diameter. So, ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
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 : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 22.412803532 152% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 50.0 30.3222958057 165% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1897.0 1373.03311258 138% => OK
No of words: 389.0 270.72406181 144% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.8766066838 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44106776838 4.04702891845 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47149208803 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 145.348785872 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.470437017995 0.540411800872 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 573.3 419.366225166 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 3.25607064018 276% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.8666624722 49.2860985944 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.388888889 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6111111111 21.698381199 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.66666666667 7.06452816374 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 4.33554083885 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.27373068433 211% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.380072756643 0.272083759551 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.133427987089 0.0996497079465 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.124173025172 0.0662205650399 188% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.25814647309 0.162205337803 159% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0976356228736 0.0443174109184 220% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.02 12.2367328918 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.17 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 63.6247240618 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.