The reading passage contends that there are several reasons why the story of burning mirror is a myth and Greeks of Syracuse never rally built such a device. On the other hand, the lecturer brings up several points that contradict this argument.
First of all, the lecturer questions the reason in the reading passage that technologically advanced skills were not held by the ancient Greeks. This is attributed to the fact that even they were not able to have technology to create the huge mirror, however, could arrange small individual mirrors as parabolic shape. Thus, the reading passage’s first reason is invalid.
Moreover, the lecturer casts doubt on the reason in the reading passage that in order to set the ships on fire, the burning mirror would have taken a long time. This is because the Roman navy ships were consisted of wood as well as other substance, called “pitch”, sticky substance. Even the experiment conducted has took ten minutes to set the wooden object, that 30 meters away from the burning mirror, on fire, it is possible to set that object on fire in seconds with the pitch. Consequently, the reading passage’s second reason is contradicted.
Last but not least, the lecturer disagrees with the reason in the reading passage that it is not improvement on a weapon that the Greeks already had. It is obvious that it is true that the Roman navy were familiar with flaming arrows. However, they could not prevent from the Greek’s attack using the burning mirror. This is because the mirror was able to burn the navy’s ships without any alarm and the navy also could not observe the attack from the Greek. This was an effective way to attack with the burning mirror. As a result, the reading passage’s last reason is refuted.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 327, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'taken'.
Suggestion: taken
...ance. Even the experiment conducted has took ten minutes to set the wooden object, t...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'consequently', 'first', 'however', 'moreover', 'second', 'so', 'thus', 'well', 'as to', 'as a result', 'as well as', 'first of all', 'it is true', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.256983240223 0.261695866417 98% => OK
Verbs: 0.148044692737 0.158904122519 93% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0754189944134 0.0723426182421 104% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0614525139665 0.0435111971325 141% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0167597765363 0.0277247811725 60% => OK
Prepositions: 0.103351955307 0.128828473217 80% => OK
Participles: 0.0391061452514 0.0370669169778 106% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.67017884773 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0223463687151 0.0208969081088 107% => OK
Particles: 0.00279329608939 0.00154638098197 181% => OK
Determiners: 0.13687150838 0.128158765124 107% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0139664804469 0.0158828679856 88% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00837988826816 0.0114777025283 73% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1786.0 1645.83664459 109% => OK
No of words: 301.0 271.125827815 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.93355481728 6.08160592843 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.04852973271 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.358803986711 0.374372842146 96% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.262458471761 0.287516216867 91% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.126245847176 0.187439937562 67% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0830564784053 0.113142543107 73% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67017884773 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 145.348785872 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.491694352159 0.539623497131 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 48.6792012117 53.8517498576 90% => OK
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0529801325 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0666666667 21.7502111507 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.2437349868 49.3711431718 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.066666667 132.220823453 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0666666667 21.7502111507 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.06666666667 0.878197800319 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.39072847682 29% => OK
Readability: 46.3125138427 50.5018328374 92% => OK
Elegance: 1.76543209877 1.90840788429 93% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.697468962815 0.549887131256 127% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.131192210727 0.142949733639 92% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.103474398373 0.0787303798458 131% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.607620478253 0.631733273073 96% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.135947765109 0.139662658121 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.32840608971 0.266732575781 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.146360989148 0.103435571967 141% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.502304266254 0.414875509568 121% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.108894478202 0.0530846634433 205% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.52589140423 0.40443939384 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0768020192856 0.0528353158467 145% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.26048565121 94% => OK
Positive topic words: 2.0 3.49668874172 57% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 3.62251655629 138% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 3.1766004415 94% => OK
Total topic words: 10.0 10.2958057395 97% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.