Carved stone balls are a curious type of artifact found at a number of locations in Scotland. They date from the late Neolithic period, around 4,000 years ago. They are round in shape; they were carved from several types of stone; most are about 70 mm in diameter; and many are ornamented to some degree. Archaeologists do not agree about their purpose and meaning, but there are several theories.
One theory is that the carved stone balls were weapons used in hunting or fighting. Some of the stone balls have been found with holes in them, and many have grooves on the surface. It is possible that a cord was strung through the holes or laid in the grooves around the ball. Holding the stone ball at the end of the cord would have allowed a person to swing it around or throw it.
A second theory is that the carved stone balls were used as part of a primitive system of weights and measures. The fact that they are so nearly uniform in size—at 70 mm in diameter—suggests that the balls were interchangeable and represented some standard unit of measure. They could have been used as standard weights to measure quantities of grain or other food, or anything that needed to be measured by weight on a balance or scale for the purpose of trade.
A third theory is that the carved stone balls served a social purpose as opposed to a practical or utilitarian one. This view is supported by the fact that many stone balls have elaborate designs. The elaborate carving suggests that the stones may have marked the important social status of their owners.
When it comes to the purpose and meaning of carved stone ball excavated in Scotland, the professor completely refutes three aspects from the reading passage.
Initially, it is consumed that the carved stone were weapons due to holes and grooves found on its surface, which are assumed as a design for person to easily throw it. Plausible as it sound, this point of view does not hold water. To be specific, if they were used for hunting, there would be cracked pieces or broken ball at those sites like ancient arrows. But in reality, all stone balls were well preserved without any damages.
In addition, scientists noticed that the stone balls were made by various variety of stones such as limestone or some other kinds, which suggest despite of the same size -at 70 mm in diameter- each individual type of balls are not as heavy as another ones, because of different density. There are a large number of types of stones. As a result, they could not be a primitive system of measures.
Lastly, the author states they might marked the social status of their owners. However, the professor argue against that viewpoint. The first reason is that the image on the ball cannot match the status of its owner. For the other reason, traditionally, possession of a person with high status would found in his/her tomb as accompanies, while as the matter of fact no ball was explored in tombs, which means these stone balls are not a social status symbol of a person.
- It is better to make friends with intelligent people than with the people who have a good sense of humor. 83
- TPO 36 3
- A government should focus its budget more on young children education than universities 76
- Do you agree or disagree that school should reduce art and music class 70
- Genetic modification a process used to change an organism s genes and hence its characteristics is now being used to improve trees Through genetic modification it is possible to create trees that produce more fruit grow faster or withstand adverse conditi 93
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 186, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'sounds'?
Suggestion: sounds
...son to easily throw it. Plausible as it sound, this point of view does not hold water...
^^^^^
Line 11, column 298, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...because of different density. There are a large number of types of stones. As a result, they coul...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, lastly, so, well, while, in addition, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1225.0 1373.03311258 89% => OK
No of words: 256.0 270.72406181 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.78515625 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.36066487403 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 145.348785872 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.625 0.540411800872 116% => OK
syllable_count: 377.1 419.366225166 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 77.1669816408 49.2860985944 157% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.083333333 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3333333333 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.91666666667 7.06452816374 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.275303162501 0.272083759551 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0849381132975 0.0996497079465 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0534705541996 0.0662205650399 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.159846365061 0.162205337803 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0520805187043 0.0443174109184 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.5 12.2367328918 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.