Apparently, there has been a historical debate about a weapon which had been used by the Greek army to defend themselves from the Roman army
Apparently, there has been a historical debate about a weapon which had been used by the Greek army to defend themselves from the Roman army; this weapon name is a burning mirror, this mirror used to set a fire in roman's ships. a group of historian believes in this story who's represented by the professor in the lecture, while others like the author in the reading passage claim that this weapon is just a myth.
First of all, the professor refutes the author opinion, that the Greek had been lacked such advanced technology, at that time, besides, the setting of fire does not need this technology to build a massive sheet of mirror, it just needs a small piece of mirror to set afire, in addition, the Greek has a mathematical way to start this fire with small mirror. So, by this point, the professor successfully argue the author first critics to a burning mirror.
Second, the professor maintains an opposite opinion to the author, he claims that to set afire, the Greek didn't have to wait for ten minutes until the wood start burning, because the Roman ship had been made of another material, which is more flammable than wood, this material called pitches, they usually used it to hold the wood together, as long as, this material can be burned in a seconds, that mean Greek didn't need to wait a long time until the wood burn, as the author assumes.
Finally, the lecture contends that it is right that the Greek had another weapon to stat fire( flamming arrow), but the Roman solders were too familiar with it, so they could avoid it so easily, also, by using a burning mirror they surprised them and could set a fire more easily and effectively. So the reading passage suggestion seems to be impractical.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 230, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: A
...ror used to set a fire in romans ships. a group of historian believes in this sto...
^
Line 1, column 274, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: who's
...oup of historian believes in this story whos represented by the professor in the lec...
^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...claim that this weapon is just a myth. First of all, the professor refutes the ...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 93, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... opinion, that the Greek had been lacked such advanced technology, at that time, ...
^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hor first critics to a burning mirror. Second, the professor maintains an oppos...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 65, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...sor maintains an opposite opinion to the author, he claims that to set afire, the...
^^
Line 3, column 114, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... he claims that to set afire, the Greek didnt have to wait for ten minutes until the ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 393, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a second' or simply 'seconds'?
Suggestion: a second; seconds
...long as, this material can be burned in a seconds, that mean Greek didnt need to wait a l...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 420, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...be burned in a seconds, that mean Greek didnt need to wait a long time until the wood...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the wood burn, as the author assumes. Finally, the lecture contends that it is...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, besides, but, finally, first, second, so, while, in addition, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => 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: 1411.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 305.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.6262295082 5.08290768461 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17902490978 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.36420498213 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.518032786885 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 435.6 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 3.25607064018 276% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 7.0 13.0662251656 54% => 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: 43.0 21.2450331126 202% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 138.686550118 49.2860985944 281% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 201.571428571 110.228320801 183% => OK
Words per sentence: 43.5714285714 21.698381199 201% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 13.1428571429 7.06452816374 186% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 4.19205298013 239% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.278145292413 0.272083759551 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.135062193154 0.0996497079465 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.213670950641 0.0662205650399 323% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.17824490019 0.162205337803 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.165670999257 0.0443174109184 374% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 22.2 13.3589403974 166% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 53.8541721854 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.7 11.0289183223 160% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.46 12.2367328918 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.03 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 10.7273730684 168% => OK
gunning_fog: 19.2 10.498013245 183% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.2008830022 161% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.