burning mirror
The reading and the listening are both about whether or not it was possible for the ancient Greek army to make a weapon called "burning mirror" to defend themself from the Romans. The author of the reading feels there is evidence to suggest that the device is just a myth. The professor, on the other hand, is not convinced of this. He casts doubt on each of the theories presented in this reading.
According to the reading, Greek technology was not qualified to make a meter wide mirror. Moreover, the mirror had to be exactly parabolic shaped, and the technology for making it was not made at that time. The lecture challenged this specific argument. The lecture asserts that the mirror was not had to be in one piece. It could be made of dozens of smaller pieces coming together and making the whole thing. Moreover, she claims that the mathematicians of that time had figured out the math to make a parabolic shaped mirror out of these small pieces.
Secondly, the author posits that according to the experiment that was designed to determine how long it would take the ship to start burning, it could not be possible for the ship's parts to catch fire under 10 minutes, and that is to long for a moving ship to be still. The lecturer, however, commits that the experiment calculated the time for the wooden part of the ship to burst into flames, but the Roman ships also had some parts with other materials. For example, there was a material called pitch that comed between the woods to make them waterproof. For this material to catch on fire would take just a few seconds, and it would make the wooden part burn easily as well.
Finally, the author contends that the Greeks already had invented the flaming arrows, and a burning mirror offered nothing more compared to the flaming arrows. He goes on, saying that there was no motive for them to make the mentioned mirror. In contrast, the lecturer stances that the Roman army already knew about the flaming arrows, and they were looking out for it, But they had no idea about the new invention of the mirror,r so they would be more vulnerable to it. Additionally, she points out that since the Romans couldn't see the rayleigh that would lead to fire, it would be more effective and surprising. Therefore make the winning chance for the Greeks higher and be enough as a motivation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 46, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...eading and the listening are both about whether or not it was possible for the ancient Greek a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 284, 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.
...suggest that the device is just a myth. The professor, on the other hand, is not co...
^^^
Line 3, column 26, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s reading. According to the reading, Greek technology was not qualified to ma...
^^
Line 7, column 286, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... contrast, the lecturer stances that the Roman army already knew about the flamin...
^^
Line 7, column 403, Rule ID: NEW_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'invention'.
Suggestion: invention
... for it, But they had no idea about the new invention of the mirror,r so they would be more v...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 430, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , r
...ea about the new invention of the mirror,r so they would be more vulnerable to it....
^^
Line 7, column 524, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...y, she points out that since the Romans couldnt see the rayleigh that would lead to fir...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 617, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...would be more effective and surprising. Therefore make the winning chance for the Greeks ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, look, moreover, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, well, for example, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 10.4613686534 201% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 22.412803532 170% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 51.0 30.3222958057 168% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1941.0 1373.03311258 141% => OK
No of words: 416.0 270.72406181 154% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.66586538462 5.08290768461 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51620172871 4.04702891845 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.41399659829 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 145.348785872 137% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.478365384615 0.540411800872 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 594.0 419.366225166 142% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 7.0 1.51434878587 462% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.0248550867 49.2860985944 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.157894737 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8947368421 21.698381199 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.26315789474 7.06452816374 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 4.19205298013 191% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.194699042121 0.272083759551 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0636553125336 0.0996497079465 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0754431172458 0.0662205650399 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124300884095 0.162205337803 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0533947991259 0.0443174109184 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 13.3589403974 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 67.08 53.8541721854 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.81 12.2367328918 80% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 63.6247240618 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.