tpo integrated 30
Both the reading and the lecture talk about the Burning mirror weapon. The reading states that the burning mirror weapon were mot invented by the Greek to defend them against the roman and the weapon is such a myth. However the lecture disagrees. It claims that the weapons were invented by the Greek and provides three reasons of support.
First, the reading states that the Greek had no technology to invent such weapon. However the lecture disagrees. It claims that the Greek did not use a large single sheet of copper to make the burning mirror. However, the Greek used dozen of small pieces of copper and arranged them together to form the burning mirror weapon.
Second, the reading states that the weapon to fire a ship at least it will take 10 minutes to start the fire and actually that would not work. But the lecture disagrees it claims that the there was a sticky substance in the ship, when burning it started to burn in a second, then the fire went through the whole ship quickly. That is how the weapon was used to fire the ships.
Third, the reading states that Greek already had arrow shooting weapon so there were no need to invent the burning mirror. Yet the lecture disagrees. It claims that the arrow shooting weapon were familiar to the Roman, so the Greek need to invent another new weapon to surprise the Roman while they were fighting with them. That is why the burning mirrors in an invention of the Greek.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 218, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...he roman and the weapon is such a myth. However the lecture disagrees. It claims that t...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 342, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... and provides three reasons of support. First, the reading states that the Greek...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 83, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ad no technology to invent such weapon. However the lecture disagrees. It claims that t...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 234, Rule ID: NODT_DOZEN[1]
Message: Use simply: 'a dozen'.
Suggestion: a dozen
...burning mirror. However, the Greek used dozen of small pieces of copper and arranged ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, however, second, so, then, third, while, at least
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => 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: 1190.0 1373.03311258 87% => OK
No of words: 257.0 270.72406181 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.63035019455 5.08290768461 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00390054096 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.05487998597 2.5805825403 80% => OK
Unique words: 112.0 145.348785872 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.43579766537 0.540411800872 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 348.3 419.366225166 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.116997792494 855% => Less interrogative sentences wanted.
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.4579507146 49.2860985944 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 79.3333333333 110.228320801 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1333333333 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.73333333333 7.06452816374 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 4.33554083885 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 4.45695364238 292% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.397885546849 0.272083759551 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.155189747377 0.0996497079465 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.092493365999 0.0662205650399 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.268655238989 0.162205337803 166% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0252522661287 0.0443174109184 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.9 13.3589403974 67% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 71.14 53.8541721854 132% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 11.0289183223 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.28 12.2367328918 76% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.57 8.42419426049 78% => OK
difficult_words: 34.0 63.6247240618 53% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 65.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.5 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.