The article and the lecture are about three theories which pretend to explain the meaning or the purpose of some carved stone balls that dated around 4000 years ago. The author in the passage believes that these hypotheses have some evidence that supports them, and consequently, they seem to be convinced. However, the lecturer casts doubt on the statements made in the reading. She thinks that those present some problems which no explain their purposes at all.
First, the author claims that the stone balls may have been used as weapons in hunting and fighting since they possess some features related to weapons from that period of time. Nevertheless, this hypothesis is challenged by the lecturer who posits that if they were used for these purposes, they would present some damaged. Furthermore, she points out that these artifacts were found in the surface well preserved which implies that they were not used for hunting or fighting.
Second, the article states that due to the similar size of the stone balls, it is considered that were used as a primitive system of weight and measure which has the purpose of trade. Nonetheless, the lecturer discredits this idea by clarifying that even they were similar in size, they did not present the same mass. Since people used different types of stone for elaborating the balls and each type of stone had a different density, it is unlikely that they were used as a weight system.
Finally, the author mentions that the stone balls may play an essential role in marking the social status of their owners because their elaboration presented particular designs. The lecturer, on the other hand, puts forth the idea that some of the stone balls were as simple as any piece of rock and also claims that if they were used for social purpose, there would be some evidence of them in thumbs of high ranking people of that time since the fact that they used to be buried with their values goods. However, there is no evidence that it would have happened.
The article and the lecture are about three theories which pretend to explain the meaning or the purpose of some carved stone balls that dated around 4000 years ago. The author in the passage believes that these hypotheses have some evidence that supports them, and consequently, they seem to be convinced. However, the lecturer casts doubt on the statements made in the reading. She thinks that those present some problems which no explain their purposes at all.
First, the author claims that the stone balls may have been used as weapons in hunting and fighting since they possess some features related to weapons from that period of time. Nevertheless, this hypothesis is challenged by the lecturer who posits that if they were used for these purposes, they would present some damaged. Furthermore, she points out that these artifacts were found in the surface well preserved which implies that they were not used for hunting or fighting.
Second, the article states that due to the similar size of the stone balls, it is considered that were used as a primitive system of weight and measure which has the purpose of trade. Nonetheless, the lecturer discredits this idea by clarifying that even they were similar in size, they did not present the same mass. Since people used different types of stone for elaborating the balls and each type of stone had a different density, it is unlikely that they were used as a weight system.
Finally, the author mentions that the stone balls may play an essential role in marking the social status of their owners because their elaboration presented particular designs. The lecturer, on the other hand, puts forth the idea that some of the stone balls were as simple as any piece of rock and also claims that if they were used for social purpose, there would be some evidence of them in thumbs of high ranking people of that time since the fact that they used to be buried with their values goods. However, there is no evidence that it would have happened.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-12-01 | Joe Cedillo | 80 | view |
- The author professes that Agnostids were arthropods and proposes three theories about how they lived based on the fossil records. However, the professor finds the ideas implausible and expresses a profound disagreement by elaborating on the fact that the 80
- Hail—pieces of ice that form and fall from clouds instead of snow or rain—has always been a problem for farmers in some areas of the United States. Hail pellets can fall with great force and destroy crops in the field. Over the last few decades, a met 85
- Undoubtedly, people lifestyles have changed over time. Some people consider that modern life is more complex than before. Therefore, I personally believe that the organization is one of the most efficient aspects that people should consider for overcoming 73
- The article and the lecture are about three theories which have been proposed for clarifying the cause of a particular sound called “quackers” which was heard by sailors in Russian submarines in the 1960s. The author in the passage believes that those 80
- Undoubtedly, technology has improved our lives in several ways. Some people prefer to have a great access to the internet while others prefer to have an efficient public transportation. Both have positive aspects that people should consider in order to ma 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 163, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...e features related to weapons from that period of time. Nevertheless, this hypothesis is chall...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 237, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...he other hand, puts forth the idea that some of the stone balls were as simple as any piece...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, so, well, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 24.0 12.0772626932 199% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 22.412803532 205% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1661.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 344.0 270.72406181 127% => OK
Chars per words: 4.82848837209 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30665032142 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.31523680377 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 514.8 419.366225166 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 21.2450331126 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 64.3900833998 49.2860985944 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.769230769 110.228320801 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.4615384615 21.698381199 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.92307692308 7.06452816374 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.365250001094 0.272083759551 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.148127020694 0.0996497079465 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.187148898046 0.0662205650399 283% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.261316585627 0.162205337803 161% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.253240080185 0.0443174109184 571% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.03 12.2367328918 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.498013245 118% => 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.