The United Kingdom (sometimes referred to as Britain) has a long and rich history of human settlement. Traces of buildings, tools, and art can be found from periods going back many thousands of years: from the Stone Age, through the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, the time of the Roman colonization, the Middle Ages, up to the beginnings of the industrial age. Yet for most of the twentieth century, the science of archaeology,dedicated to uncovering and studying old cultural artifacts,was faced with serious problems and limitations in Britain.
First, many valuable artifacts were lost to construction projects. The growth of Britain's population, especially from the 1950s on, spurred a lot of new construction in British cities, towns, and villages. While digging foundations for new buildings, the builders often uncovered archaeologically valuable sites.Usually, however, they proceeded with the construction and did not preserve the artifacts. Many archaeologically precious artifacts were therefore destroyed.
Second, many archaeologists felt that the financial support for archaeological research was inadequate. For most of the twentieth century, archaeology was funded mostly through government funds and grants, which allowed archaeologists to investigate a handful of the most important sites but which left hundreds of other interesting projects without support. Furthermore, changing government priorities brought about periodic reductions in funding.
Third, it was difficult to have a career in archaeology. Archaeology jobs were to be found at universities or with a few government agencies, but there were never many positions available. Many people who wanted to become archaeologists ended up pursuing other careers and contributing to archaeological research only as unpaid amateurs.
Question:
Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how the new guidelines adopted in the United Kingdom helped to address the specific problems discussed in the reading passage.
The new guidelines adopted in U.K. helped to solve the three problems mentioned in the reading paragraph.
First, the guidelines ensured that before any construction projects, a thorough measurement and plan should be made. For example, the archaeological interests should be investigated, and plans for preserving the construction projects should be documented. By doing so, valuable artifacts could have more insurance of not being destroyed.
Second, the financial support was previous given by the government, but the guidelines suggested that the support should be given by the construction companies. This was an important improvement in archaeological research. Therefore, the scientific research process including design, construction, and data collection from artifacts could be done without too much uncertainty of being cut off of funds.
Finally, there were lots of paid works being provided since the guidelines were proposed. The increasing number of job opportunities gave chances to those who wanted to become archaeologists and eventually flourished archaeological research.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, second, so, therefore, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 12.0772626932 25% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 4.0 22.412803532 18% => OK
Preposition: 19.0 30.3222958057 63% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 944.0 1373.03311258 69% => OK
No of words: 157.0 270.72406181 58% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.0127388535 5.08290768461 118% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.53976893118 4.04702891845 87% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.32464552713 2.5805825403 129% => OK
Unique words: 106.0 145.348785872 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.675159235669 0.540411800872 125% => OK
syllable_count: 275.4 419.366225166 66% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.3720037818 49.2860985944 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.888888889 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4444444444 21.698381199 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.55555555556 7.06452816374 93% => 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 : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.0627764754063 0.272083759551 23% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0236392819247 0.0996497079465 24% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0229899322085 0.0662205650399 35% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0310558666813 0.162205337803 19% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0240853475141 0.0443174109184 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 13.3589403974 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.3 53.8541721854 69% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.28 12.2367328918 141% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.51 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 50.0 63.6247240618 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
More content wanted.
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.