burning mirror
The reading and the lecture are both about the burning mirror. The author of the task feels that there are several reasons to say the burning mirror is a myth, and Greek never had that device. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. Her position is that claims that against having a burning mirror by Greek are unconvincing.
First, the author argues that Greek was no technologically sophisticated. The article mentions that Greek can not have such a giant mirror that is a large curved sheet of copper that is geometrically called a parabola. The lecturer challenged this specific argument. She claims that a burning mirror can be made not only from a single sheet of copper. Additionally, she says a burning mirror can form from many small mirrors to create an oversized sheet known as a parabola.
Secondly, the writer suggests that burning mirror will take a long time to create fire on the ship. The article said that boats need to be stable, not moving, and the burning mirror needs to have ten minutes to set fire on the boat by focusing on its sunlight. The lecturer, however, refutes this by mentioning that ships consist of a material other than wood. She elaborates on this by emphasizing that ships had a sticky substance called pitch that can in seconds set fire on the ship and very effective.
Finally, the author posits that burning mirrors are not better than arrows. Moreover, the article stated that shooting an enemy with flaming arrows can happen with burning mirror from the same distance. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that with arrows will be impossible to see the exact location on another ship to set fire. She notes that Greek can direct the arrows to another.
In conclusion, the lecturer's opinion opposes the author's opinion.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 194, 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.
... myth, and Greek never had that device. The lecturer challenges the claims made by ...
^^^
Line 5, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lecturers'' or 'lecturer's'?
Suggestion: lecturers'; lecturer's
... arrows to another. In conclusion, the lecturers opinion opposes the authors opinion.
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 50, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...sion, the lecturers opinion opposes the authors opinion.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, in conclusion, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1479.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 305.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.84918032787 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17902490978 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52231960915 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.498360655738 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 452.7 419.366225166 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.7275107084 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.1666666667 110.228320801 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.9444444444 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.83333333333 7.06452816374 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.443713881191 0.272083759551 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.16737346654 0.0996497079465 168% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.164721695454 0.0662205650399 249% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.2514513125 0.162205337803 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.149605330506 0.0443174109184 338% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.9 13.3589403974 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.55 12.2367328918 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.74 8.42419426049 92% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.5 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.