Tpo33
Both of the reading and lecture are about the carved stone balls which their date returns to the late Neolithic period. The reading provides three theories for using these mentioned balls and then supports them. The lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article and finds all of arguments dubious.
First of all, the author of reading declares that carved stone balls may have been a kind of weapon because some of them had the holes or grooves. This reveals that a cord might have allowed Neolithic people to apply these stones for throwing. This point is challenged by the professor. She points out that other weapons and objects related to this period have some cracks and breaks on their surface; however, these aforementioned balls were totally undamaged.
Secondly, the article contends that since carved balls had a uniform weight; hence, their function would have been as a standard weight and they may have played a role in measuring their needed materials; in the contrast, the lecturer claims that carved stone balls had different mass. She elaborates on this by mentioning that for making carved balls, Neolithic people employed a variety of rocks such as sandstone, grindstone and so on. Since rocks have diverse densities; therefore, two sands from two different types could have had different weights.
Finally, the reading passage states that carved stone balls may have played a role as a symbol in the society for showing a social status due to having some designs on their surface; however, this argument is rebutted by the lecturer again. In fact, the professor expresses that there are a wide range of designs. The carved stone balls include intricate patterns and very simple symbols and meanwhile as we all know, in ancient era, when a person with high rank of community died up, some social symbols were being put in his tomb; however, archaeologist could not find any carved stone balls in Neolithic tombs.
- tpo11 88
- Tpo33 80
- Do you agree or disagree? to improve the quality of education, the universities should spend more money on salaries for university professors. 75
- tpo15 80
- do you agree or disagree?? the young people should try different jobs before they decide which job or career they will choose in the long term. 83
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, while, in fact, kind of, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1629.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 325.0 270.72406181 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01230769231 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24591054749 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.36874320658 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 145.348785872 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550769230769 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 485.1 419.366225166 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 1.0 0.116997792494 855% => Less interrogative sentences wanted.
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 77.7277908309 49.2860985944 158% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.307692308 110.228320801 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 21.698381199 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.0769230769 7.06452816374 143% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.480041076089 0.272083759551 176% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.160625313726 0.0996497079465 161% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.110446523973 0.0662205650399 167% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.29435728482 0.162205337803 181% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0437162912641 0.0443174109184 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.3589403974 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.57 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.