30-W1
The reading and listening material have a debate on whether the Greeks really defended themselves with the burning mirror. The writer suspects that the story of burning mirror is just a myth, which is contradicted by the following lecture.
Firstly, the writer claims that the technology of ancient Greeks was not advanced enough for them to make the burning mirror. However, the speaker casts a doubt on this opinion by saying that the burning mirror can be formed by dozens of small pieces of copper instead of using a large single sheet of copper. Actually, the ancient Greeks knew the property of that, so they had the ability to produce that kind of mirror.
Secondly, the author argues that it is impossible to set the ships on fire by the burning mirror due to the long time taken, while the lecture views this issue from an opposite angle. According to the professor, indeed it takes ten minutes to burn the still wood, but there were other materials such as silk and pitch on the ships as well. For instance, it takes the pitch to catch on fire quickly, just in seconds. As a result, the ancient Greeks could use the burning mirror to burn the pitch rapidly at first, then let the fire spread to wood even when it was moving.
Thirdly, the passage states that the ancient Greeks had no reason to use the burning mirror since they had better weapon, the flaming arrow. By contrast, in accordance with the professor, this claim does not hold water. It is because the ancient Greeks was familiar with flaming arrow, the same as their enemies. They could only give the enemies a surprising attack by using the burning mirror effectively.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 98, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...er the Greeks really defended themselves with the burning mirror. The writer susp...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, firstly, however, really, second, secondly, so, still, then, third, thirdly, well, while, for instance, kind of, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => 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: 1357.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 289.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.6955017301 5.08290768461 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.26101732128 2.5805825403 88% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.546712802768 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 405.0 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.8582930121 49.2860985944 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.384615385 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2307692308 21.698381199 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.9230769231 7.06452816374 169% => 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 : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => 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: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.3589403974 88% => 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: 10.28 12.2367328918 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.9 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.