Burning mirrors
The reading and lecture both discuss the ''burning mirror," a copper ingenious weapon. In the set of materials, the writer strongly postulates that the weapon was used by the greeks to defend themselves against Romans and
provides three reasons to endorse its idea. On the other hand, the professor states
that claims made in the reading are impractical, so unconvincing and gainsays each of the arguments mentioned in the reading passage.
First and foremost, the passage begins by asserting it was preposterous for ancient greeks to invent such a weapon of parabolic curvature as it required a high level of precision and advanced technology. Nonetheless, the lecture maintains that though it was improbable to create a parabolic weapon from a single sheet of copper, multiple small mirrors were used to create a parabolic sheet that was not an arduous task for greeks even in past
Next, the professor in the lecture further points if the ships had only been made from wood it would have prevented them from the explosion, yet a sticky substance was used to seal the boats, which was extremely explosive. Therefore, waterproof sealing could have caught the fire and burnt the ships in seconds, even if ships were moving. These claims refute the writer's implication that when an experimental wooden ship at 30 meters away was used to check the efficacy of the weapon, it took a long time about 10 minutes to burn the static ships whereas the ship had not remained still in past for that much time. Hence, such a weapon could not be used for firing purposes.
Ultimately, the article wraps his arguments by declaring that depending on the efficacy Greeks had not needed to build burning weapons because they were already using the same kind of weapons, flaming arrows. The speaker in the listening rebuts this point by insisting that because of the reason that Romans were already aware of flaming arrows, Greek could have used burning mirrors as surprising weapons since Romans could not have seen the rays from burning mirrors and the burning mirror would be more powerful than flaming arrows.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 56, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
... lecture both discuss the burning mirror,' a copper ingenious weapon. In the set...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 364, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...ps were moving. These claims refute the writers implication that when an experimental w...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, if, nonetheless, second, so, still, therefore, whereas, kind of, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => 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: 1755.0 1373.03311258 128% => OK
No of words: 352.0 270.72406181 130% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98579545455 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33147354134 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51493312505 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 145.348785872 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.539772727273 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 531.9 419.366225166 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 35.0 21.2450331126 165% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 113.996491174 49.2860985944 231% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 175.5 110.228320801 159% => OK
Words per sentence: 35.2 21.698381199 162% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.1 7.06452816374 143% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.09492273731 147% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.225207048343 0.272083759551 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0940900584439 0.0996497079465 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.144371993047 0.0662205650399 218% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106792570578 0.162205337803 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.130205041596 0.0443174109184 294% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.7 13.3589403974 147% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.41 53.8541721854 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 11.0289183223 143% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 16.0 10.498013245 152% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.2008830022 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
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.