TPO- test30- burning mirror
The passage in the reading talks about a new weapon from Greek soldiers, the burning mirror, and provides several claims to argue that it was rather a myth. The lecture, however, rebuts the claims made in the passage stating them to be unconvincing.
First, the writer, in the passage, posits that the Greeks were not technologically advanced enough to make such a device with copper sheets which needed to be of several meters in width and of precise parabolic shapr. Furthermore, proper technology was not available at that time to made such large copper sheets. But, the lecturer claims that the Greeks did not need to produce large copper sheets. They could produce small copper sheets and join them to get the parabolic shape required as the maths of parabola were known to the Greek mathematicians.
Secondly, The passage posits that the device burning mirror was impractical and ineffective as a weapon as an experiment shows that it requires ten minutes to put stationary wood on fire whereas the Roman ships might not have been perfectly still. The lecturer, however, rebuts the claim by saying that the experiment incorrectly assumed that the roman ships were made out of wood only and added that there were other materials used in the constructions. Then, she said that for waterproofing the ships the ancient Romans used a materials called pitch which is very easy to start fire, even within seconds. Thus burning mirror was not impractical.
Thirdly, the writer states that the Greeks already had flaming arrows which can be used to start fire on the Roman ships and was effective at the same range as the burning mirror. So, there was no apparent reason to build the burning mirror. The speaker, in the rebuttal of this point, said that as the Romans knew about about the flaming arrows, they coulde be prepared for them and could put out the fire. But, with burning mirror, they just see the mirror but cannot see the burning rays. Thus the fire on the ship would come to them as a surprise.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 528, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a material' or simply 'materials'?
Suggestion: a material; materials
...ofing the ships the ancient Romans used a materials called pitch which is very easy to star...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 316, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: about
...his point, said that as the Romans knew about about the flaming arrows, they coulde be prep...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 493, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...mirror but cannot see the burning rays. Thus the fire on the ship would come to them...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, second, secondly, so, still, then, third, thirdly, thus, whereas
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 15.1003584229 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 9.8082437276 71% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 13.8261648746 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.0286738351 136% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 43.0788530466 53% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 52.1666666667 73% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 8.0752688172 25% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1676.0 1977.66487455 85% => OK
No of words: 346.0 407.700716846 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.84393063584 4.8611393121 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31289638616 4.48103885553 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43351914653 2.67179642975 91% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 212.727598566 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.524837075471 95% => OK
syllable_count: 501.3 618.680645161 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.51630824373 92% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.59856630824 42% => OK
Article: 9.0 3.08781362007 291% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 3.51792114695 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.6003584229 73% => 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 20.1344086022 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.6493308966 48.9658058833 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.733333333 100.406767564 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0666666667 20.6045352989 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.53333333333 5.45110844103 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 11.8709677419 25% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.85842293907 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.174656879175 0.236089414692 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0800513116722 0.076458572812 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.110197714446 0.0737576698707 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.112222656707 0.150856017488 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0805573188758 0.0645574589148 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 11.7677419355 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 65.05 58.1214874552 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.1575268817 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.09 10.9000537634 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.74 8.01818996416 97% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 86.8835125448 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.002688172 110% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.0537634409 111% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
We are expecting: No. of Words: 350 while No. of Different Words: 200
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.