All too often, inventors from the U.S. and European countries are incorrectly credited for creating the modern world. In fact, various nations around the world are truly responsible for many of the innovations that have shaped our lives today.
To give one example, European armies are credited with developing the modern firearm in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It is true that the European guns were hand-held combustion weapons that could quickly fire a bullet, just like today’s handguns. However, it is also true that 600 years earlier, Chinese armies had already been using firearms called “hand cannons,” which had many of the essential features of the European weapons that came later.
Then there is the case of the airplane. The world remembers American inventors Wilbur and Orville Wright for creating modern flight, with their development of a steerable, motorized flying machine in 1903. Yet Brazilian aviator Alberto Santos-Dumont had made the world’s first true steerable motorized flying machine in 1899. It is further worth noting that the Wright Brothers’ first flights in 1903 and 1904 lasted less than 5 minutes, while Santos-Dumont’s 1899 flight lasted nearly a half hour.
But perhaps the most popular modern invention that historians wrongly thank Europe for is the camera, a device nearly everyone owns and uses today. Most history books name 19th century French photographer Louis Daguerre as the inventor of the camera. In fact, the true inventor of the camera was an Iraqi scientist born nearly 1,000 years before Daguerre. Ibn al-Haytham developed pinhole camera technology, the basis for modern photography, in the early 11th century. This is yet another prominent example of Western inventors dominating our historical awareness, so that we fail to notice how much the rest of the world has contributed to modern life.
The reading and the lecture are both about contributing to the modern world's innovations. The author of the article feels that many other nations were responsible for today's innovations. The lecturer disputes the claims made in the article. His position is that the examples in the reading do not support the argument.
According to the reading, Chinese armies were the real innovators of firearms. The article mentions that Chinese armies used guns six hundred years before European armies, calling them hand cannons. The lecturer challenges this argument. He claims that hand cannons were impractical, huge, and handed by two people. Additionally, he points out that Europeans invented a whole new design and made it more usable on the battlefield.
Secondly, the author suggests that Alberto Santos-Dumont, a Brazilian aviator, was the first inventor of the motorized flying machine. The lecturer, however, asserts that Alberto Santos-Dumont did not invent the fly machine. A Brazilian aviator designed the hydrogen balloon, while Wright Brothers created the first real and safe airplane.
Finally, the author posits that Ibn Al-Haytham invented the camera a thousand years before French photographer Louis Daguerre. In contrast, the lecturer's stance is Ibn Al-Haytham's camera did not produce actual photos. He notes that Daguerre, on the other hand, designed a new machine that could produce photos.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 188, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ere responsible for todays innovations. The lecturer disputes the claims made in th...
^^^
Line 7, column 91, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ented the camera a thousand years before French photographer Louis Daguerre. In c...
^^
Line 7, column 146, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lecturers'' or 'lecturer's'?
Suggestion: lecturers'; lecturer's
...rapher Louis Daguerre. In contrast, the lecturers stance is Ibn Al-Haythams camera did no...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, second, secondly, while, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 15.0 30.3222958057 49% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1199.0 1373.03311258 87% => OK
No of words: 216.0 270.72406181 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.55092592593 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.83365862548 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76046689332 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 133.0 145.348785872 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.615740740741 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 361.8 419.366225166 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 25.5652541983 49.2860985944 52% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 79.9333333333 110.228320801 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.4 21.698381199 66% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.66666666667 7.06452816374 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0847123763067 0.272083759551 31% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.027514044393 0.0996497079465 28% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0495253396433 0.0662205650399 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0510287525878 0.162205337803 31% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0567683315833 0.0443174109184 128% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 48.81 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.32 12.2367328918 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.52 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.