tpo 25
The reading and the lecture both address about the vessel that had been excavated two years earlier by villagers in Iraq. The author believes that the vessels were not used as electric batteries in the past. The lecture casts doubt on the claims made in the reading passage.
First of all, the author points out that there were no metal wires found on the excavation site. The lecture challenges this point by mentioning that the batteries were discovered by the local people, not by the archeologist. The lecture says that villagers might not recognize the wires or they might throw away the wires. Therefore, there was the absence of wires with the vessels.
Secondly, the author states that the copper cylinders inside the jars were looked like cylinders found in the remains of Seleucia. The author mentions that the copper cylinders in Seleucia were used to hold scrolls and the scrolls inside the copper cylinders were disintegrated over the centuries so we did not get scrolls. The lecture rebuts this argument by explaining that it is true that copper cylinders were used to preserve scrolls. However, the people did not use the copper cylinders only for one purpose. They used it to produce electricity, too.
Lastly, the author contends that ancient people did not need electric batteries. The lecture, on the other hand, posits that ancient people used the batteries to convince other people that they had magical power. In addition, the batteries also were used by ancient doctors as a healing agent to stimulate the muscle.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 209, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...used as electric batteries in the past. The lecture casts doubt on the claims made ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, lastly, look, second, secondly, so, therefore, in addition, first of all, it is true, on the other hand
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 : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1289.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 257.0 270.72406181 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.01556420233 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00390054096 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.41891940755 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 128.0 145.348785872 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.498054474708 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 396.9 419.366225166 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.9730763519 49.2860985944 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.9333333333 110.228320801 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1333333333 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.66666666667 7.06452816374 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => 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: 0.47278730449 0.272083759551 174% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.148900799448 0.0996497079465 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0844047544153 0.0662205650399 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.243587304007 0.162205337803 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0830288802139 0.0443174109184 187% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 13.3589403974 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.54 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.86 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.