Based on the given materials, the article as well as the lecture discusses a polished and curved copper sheet, named burning mirror, which is one of the weapons used by Greeks to defended themselves against Roman ships by affecting them to catch fire. The author states that there are several theories in rejecting uses of burning mirror by Greeks. That being said, the lecturer provides several ideas to repudiate this rejection.
Initially, the author says that Greeks did not have technologically advanced knowledge to build burning mirror, which needs to be a huge sheet for its purpose. Also, Greeks required curvature, which required an earlier technology to produce. However, the lecturer explains that these wide sheets did not produce by one individual sheet, but with forming and merging several flat polished coper sheets, and this technique made the manufacturing easier. In addition, the proportion they used in producing burning mirror was ready by their mathematicians.
Second, the writer proclaims that an experiment showed that it took ten minutes to burn an object from 30 meters distance; by this experiment, it was impossible for Greeks to use this weapon owing to the fact that its efficiency was very low. Yet again, the speaker underscores that materials used in Romans' ships contained not only wood but also some pitches, which were burnt quickly and spread the fire to another materials, like wood, and it continued even in moving ships.
The final point of contention between the reading and the listening passage is doubts on weapon improvements of Greeks. The author thinks that Greeks had a developed weapon, called flaming arrow, which could attack far targets as well as burning minor. So, there were no reason to try another weapon. On the other hand, the speaker explains that using flaming arrows needed Romans to be stable enough till Greeks could attack them effectively. In addition, the Romans could be prepared before anything happened. But, as an advantage of burning mirror, the defenders could not see any weapon except a huge mirror, and a fire could occur suddenly; using burning mirror was effective and surprising enough to win against Romans.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, second, so, well, as to, in addition, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1840.0 1373.03311258 134% => OK
No of words: 356.0 270.72406181 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16853932584 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34372677135 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55633411066 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 145.348785872 141% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.575842696629 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 558.0 419.366225166 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.6541988341 49.2860985944 135% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.666666667 110.228320801 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7333333333 21.698381199 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.8 7.06452816374 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.179330835155 0.272083759551 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0673914818963 0.0996497079465 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0874656952763 0.0662205650399 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117635445364 0.162205337803 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0506360604006 0.0443174109184 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.3589403974 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.9 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 63.6247240618 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.