The reading provides three reasons to show that burning mirror is a myth and the Greeks of the Syracuse could not build such a weapon. The speaker, however, said that the reasons are unconvincing and refute each reason.
First, the passage says ancient Greeks were not advanced enough to build such a large complex mirror. But the speaker states that they do not have to build such a large mirror and several smaller mirrors can mimic the same purpose. The same parabolic curvature is also achievable with some help from a mathematician.
Second, the author states that it takes a long time to set wood on fire at that distance even without considering the ships are on the move. However, the speaker reminds that the ships' construction material is not just wood. She explains that there is a sticky material called pitch used to waterproofing the ships and this material 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, hence they had no reason to build 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 180, 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 wood....
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, hence, however, second, so, third, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1151.0 1373.03311258 84% => OK
No of words: 242.0 270.72406181 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.75619834711 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94415379849 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.30968079334 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 145.348785872 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.557851239669 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 344.7 419.366225166 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => 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: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.0667579845 49.2860985944 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.636363636 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 21.698381199 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.18181818182 7.06452816374 88% => 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: 0.476489285249 0.272083759551 175% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.162566793167 0.0996497079465 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0911241957379 0.0662205650399 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.250528237953 0.162205337803 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0965618030855 0.0443174109184 218% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 13.3589403974 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 66.07 53.8541721854 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.33 12.2367328918 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.79 8.42419426049 92% => OK
difficult_words: 47.0 63.6247240618 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.0 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.