the clay jars which had been discovered in Iraq have nothing to do with producing electricity
The authors of the reading passage claim that the clay jars which had been discovered in Iraq have nothing to do with producing electricity; however the lecture finds all the reasons introduced by passage precarious, and it advances a group of explanation to repudiate them all.
First of all, the author argues that if the vessel had been developed to use as batteries, archeologists should have found some evidence related to metal wires. Contrariwise, the professor considers the idea that this reason is unconvincing owing to the fact that some local people have found material near the excavated place, and they did not give their findings to archeologists. She explains that they might have discarded their findings, or they may have assumed their findings as an unimportant things.
Furthermore, the passage holds the view that the copper cylinders inside the clay jars are used for holding scrolls like others which had been discovered from Seleucia. Over again, the professor brings this reason into question through providing the fact that similarity between these two systems did not disprove the central claim that they were fabricated to produce electricity. She claims that later discoveries demonstrates the usefulness of copper cylinders to produce electricity when liquid water is added into this type of cylinder. In fact, the copper cylinders were early implemented to hold scrolls; however, later, they were developed to serve as another purpose.
The last point on which both the lecture and the reading are in contradiction with one another is that reading announces the fact that if ancient people had created these systems to produce electricity, in what way they would have used this electricity. In other words, these batteries were useless to them. On the contrary, the professor states that they could use them to generate mild shocks in order to convince other people that they have magical powers, and put them into medical purposes to improve muscle’s operation.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-09-28 | bahram1993 | 80 | view |
- What is your approach to problem-solving, and how does it work for you? Use specific details to support your response. 73
- In general, people are living longer now. Discuss the causes of this phenomenon. Use specific reasons and details to develop your essay. 90
- Leadership comes naturally: one cannot learn to be a leader 70
- It has recently been announced that a new restaurant may be built in your neighborhood. Do you support or oppose this plan? Why? Use specific reasons and details to support your answer. 76
- What are some important qualities of a good supervisor (boss)? Use specific details and examples to explain why these qualities are important. 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 502, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'thing'?
Suggestion: thing
...ssumed their findings as an unimportant things. Furthermore, the passage holds the v...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, in fact, first of all, in other words, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 22.412803532 170% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1688.0 1373.03311258 123% => OK
No of words: 320.0 270.72406181 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.275 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22948505376 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70875317259 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 145.348785872 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5625 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 522.0 419.366225166 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 29.0 21.2450331126 137% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 61.5369270311 49.2860985944 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 153.454545455 110.228320801 139% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.0909090909 21.698381199 134% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.72727272727 7.06452816374 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.289143977062 0.272083759551 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10031325505 0.0996497079465 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.119560616936 0.0662205650399 181% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.191481834567 0.162205337803 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.135040417249 0.0443174109184 305% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.0 13.3589403974 135% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 53.8541721854 78% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.0289183223 132% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.94 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.87 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 10.7273730684 186% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.498013245 130% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.