The reading provides three reasons to show that burning mirror is a myth and the Greeks of the Syracuse could not have such a weapon. The speaker, however, said that the reasons are unconvincing and refute each reason by indicating following points.
First, the passage says ancient Greeks were not advanced technologically enough to build such a large complex mirror. But the speaker states that they did not have to build such a large mirror and several smaller mirrors can mimic the same purpose. She explains that the same parabolic curvature is achievable through some help from a mathematician.
Second, the author states that it takes a long time to set wood on fire at that distance according to their experiment and that was without considering the ships are on the move. However, the speaker reminds that the ships' construction material is not just include wood. She explains that there is a sticky material called pitch that were used to waterproofing the ships and this material can catch fire in a matter of seconds.
Third, the author claims that burning mirror was not an improvement over their framing arrow at the time and hence they had no intention to built such a weapon. The speaker objects this reason by saying that the Roman navy was aware of the flaming arrow and would notice the weapon as soon as the Greeks wanted to use them while burning mirror could set their ships on fire without attracting their attention. So, the Romans would not notice until their ship is actually on fire.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 218, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'ships'' or 'ship's'?
Suggestion: ships'; ship's
.... However, the speaker reminds that the ships construction material is not just inclu...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, hence, however, second, so, third, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1262.0 1373.03311258 92% => OK
No of words: 260.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.85384615385 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01553427287 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44445998441 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 140.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538461538462 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 378.0 419.366225166 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.6523984484 49.2860985944 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.727272727 110.228320801 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6363636364 21.698381199 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.63636363636 7.06452816374 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.470274183895 0.272083759551 173% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.164878903031 0.0996497079465 165% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.099842179387 0.0662205650399 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.254046134157 0.162205337803 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.089032649821 0.0443174109184 201% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 13.3589403974 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.15 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 52.0 63.6247240618 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25 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.