Dowsing is the millennia-old practice of finding hidden things. The most well-known activity of dowsing involves the use of a device such as a forked stick to locate underground water. To this end, the dowser walks slowly back and forth over an area of ground holding the dowsing tool out in front with both hands. It is said that the dowser, by concentrating carefully, is somehow able to feel the energy of the flowing underground streams vibrating through the rod at certain frequencies, and thus is able to tell precisely where to dig or drill to find water. Sometimes the dowsing tool will twist and jerk or suddenly point downward. Some dowsers hold two L-shaped rods, one in each hand. In this case, when he or she walks over an area of underlying water, the rods cross over indicating the place where digging should commence.
In recent years dowsing has gained in popularity not only as a method for finding underground water but also for trying to uncover other objects including buried treasure, oil, or even dead bodies. A recent application has been the search for what some consider harmful energy fields in an attempt to avoid them. Even large businesses and official organizations pay dowsers for their detection skills. Although no one is completely sure how dowsing works, the testimonials of satisfied customers bear witness to the success of this ancient art.
Summarize the points made in the lecture you just heard, explaining how they cast doubt on the points made in the reading.
An ancient technique of finding hidden things including underground water, Dowsing, is put under question because it against the laws of physics and does not bring strong evidence.
The method used a tool called forked stick to track invisible force from underground water. Dowsing also has been used to find buried treasure, oil, and even dead bodies. However, the professor argued the successful dowsing experiment as an unusual claim and without solid proof.
According to the professor, the force of energy that claimed given off by objects is unknown to science. Furthermore, she explained that a device that can detect weak signals from distant objects from space cannot tract signals from nearby materials, which were claimed to give strong force on dowsing tools. Other attempts have also been tried to test dowsing hypothesis. It is then concluded that dowsing techniques can only be successful without strict scientific restrictions. Finally, she argued that past result of successful dowsing technique was only a random of luck.
In conclusion, dowsing technique is call into question because it does not satisfy the scientific principles. Following this further, several scientific attempts made to confirm the force that was claimed given off from objects in underground water were found unsuccessful.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-09-23 | kshinichi | 78 | view |
| 2019-10-11 | suhas201227 | 80 | view |
- Compare and contrast your way of life with that of your parents Which way of life do you think would be more satisfying to future generations 66
- Think critically about the following statement. A universal language should replace all languages. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a universal language. 70
- Compare and contrast the advantages of choosing a stable career over an adventurous lifestyle. Use reasons and specific examples to support your opinion. 71
- Dowsing is the millennia-old practice of finding hidden things. The most well-known activity of dowsing involves the use of a device such as a forked stick to locate underground water. To this end, the dowser walks slowly back and forth over an area of gr 81
- Asthma is ussually seen as a condition whose symptoms can be adequately controlled with the right medicines. Researchers point out that it is an intermittent disorder,characterized by temporary bouts of inflammation of the airways,which lead to typical sy 80
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, furthermore, however, if, so, then, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => OK
Pronoun: 12.0 22.412803532 54% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1116.0 1373.03311258 81% => OK
No of words: 204.0 270.72406181 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.47058823529 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.77926670891 4.04702891845 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65872519918 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 127.0 145.348785872 87% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.622549019608 0.540411800872 115% => OK
syllable_count: 324.0 419.366225166 77% => 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: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.0758857933 49.2860985944 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.454545455 110.228320801 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5454545455 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.81818181818 7.06452816374 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.177828083584 0.272083759551 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0709395251247 0.0996497079465 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0379050113145 0.0662205650399 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117428742944 0.162205337803 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0489180624152 0.0443174109184 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.3589403974 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.2367328918 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.