tpo16
Both the reading and lecture are about archaeology job in the twentieth century. The reading provides three reasons that The United Kingdom’s archeologists experienced some serious troubles in this century and then supports them. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article and finds all of them dubious. She poses that a new guideline which was determined in 1990, created an ideal circumstance for archeologists.
First of all, the author of reading declares that with increasing population in the Britain caused building industry to spread and unfortunately a huge number of sites were exploited without examination of archaeologically; consequently, a lot of ancient artifacts were ruined in this way. This point is challenged by the lecturer. The professor points out that based on the aforementioned guideline, every construction project had to be surveyed by archaeologists and then they were creating a plan. In the next step, all of archeologists, government and companies were gathering and attempting to preserve old materials.
Secondly, the article contends that archeologists could not receive an appropriate fund from government; hence, they were funded just on some vital sites and other appealing projects were ignored; in the contrast, the lecturer expresses that the needed money for excavation was being supplied by the private construction companies not government. The professor elaborates on this by mentioning that after the initial examination, archeologists were estimating the related costs and then those mentioned companies were providing a wide range grants for them.
Finally, the reading passage states that there was not enough job opportunity for archaeology in the twentieth century. This argument is rebutted by the professor again and she believes that in that time, a wide range of jobs were created for archeologists even more than past such as determining value and valid for old artifacts, presenting plan of excavation, writing report and this list seems endless.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-01-09 | Pooja dave | 80 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, first, hence, if, second, secondly, so, then, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1728.0 1373.03311258 126% => OK
No of words: 311.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.55627009646 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19942759058 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1570585262 2.5805825403 122% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 145.348785872 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.591639871383 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 522.9 419.366225166 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => 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: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 91.4881215726 49.2860985944 186% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.0 110.228320801 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.9166666667 21.698381199 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.91666666667 7.06452816374 112% => 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 : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.227415975225 0.272083759551 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.081213588371 0.0996497079465 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0500826365978 0.0662205650399 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134523230895 0.162205337803 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0147609330909 0.0443174109184 33% => 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: 17.7 13.3589403974 132% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 53.8541721854 70% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.26 12.2367328918 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.5 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 63.6247240618 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.