The claims that the burning mirror would have been impractical and technologically impossible are unconvincing.First, the Greeks did not need to form a single sheet of copper to make a large, burning mirror. An experiment has shown that dozens of small individually flat pieces of polished copper could be arranged into a parabolic shape and form a large, burning mirror. The Greek mathematicians know the properties of the parabola and so could have directed the assembly of small mirror pieces into the parabolic shape.Second, about how long it would take to set a ship on fire with a burning mirror. The experiment the reading selection mentions assumes that the burning mirror was used to set the wood of the boat on fire, that's what takes ten minutes. But Roman boats were not made just of wood. There were other materials involved as well. For example, to seal the spaces between wooden boards and make them waterproof, the ancient boat-builders used a sticky substance called pitch. Pitch catches fire very quickly. An experiment showed that pitch could be set on fire by a burning mirror in seconds. And once the pitch was burning, the fire would spread to the wood even if the ship was moving. So a burning mirror could have worked quickly enough to be an effective weapon.Third, why bother with a burning mirror instead of flaming arrows? Well, Roman soldiers were familiar with flaming arrows and would have been watching for them and were ready to put out the fires they might cause. But you cannot see the burning rays from a mirror; you just see the mirror. But then suddenly and magically a fire starts at some unobserved place on the ship that would have been much more surprising and therefore much more effective than a flame arrow.
The article states that the story of the burning mirror is just a myth and provide three reasons of support . However, the professor explains that the burning mirror and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading claims that it was technologically impossible to build such a tremendous mirror by s single sheet of copper in ancient Greece. The professor refutes this point by showing expeiment that doxens of small polished copper may do the same job efficiently and Greek mathematicians were excellent enough to accomplish it perfectly. Second, the article posits that it might take a long time for the burning mirror to set a wooden ship on fire and the enemy wouldn't be stupid to stay still for ten minutes. However, the proferror says that those ancient warships were not build by wood only. A special material called pitch was used to fill the spaces between and pitch catches fire quickly. Thus it was possible for a burning mirror to burn the pitch first then the ship. In this way can a burning mirror be an effective weapon. Lastly, the author argues that the burning mirror is less effective flexible than flaming arrows. Thus, ancient Greek won't bother to devote much effort to build such a useless weapon . Nevertheless, the lecture argues that since flaming arrows are usual weapons used so much, Roman soldiers were familiar with them and knew how to protect the ship from burning by flaming arrows. But on the other hand, it was extremely hard to predict where the burning mirror would fire the ship. Thus it is more effective to use a burning mirror than flaming arrows.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 108, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...yth and provide three reasons of support . However, the professor explains that th...
^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d refutes each of the authors reasons. First, the reading claims that it was te...
^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 476, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...set a wooden ship on fire and the enemy wouldnt be stupid to stay still for ten minutes...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 590, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'builded', 'built'.
Suggestion: builded; built
...ys that those ancient warships were not build by wood only. A special material called...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 710, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...between and pitch catches fire quickly. Thus it was possible for a burning mirror to...
^^^^
Line 2, column 1023, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...vote much effort to build such a useless weapon . Nevertheless, the lecture argue...
^^
Line 2, column 1031, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...h effort to build such a useless weapon . Nevertheless, the lecture argues that s...
^^
Line 2, column 1331, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...the burning mirror would fire the ship. Thus it is more effective to use a burning m...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, lastly, may, nevertheless, second, so, still, then, thus, 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: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1325.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 275.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 4.81818181818 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07223819929 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.40045328427 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.563636363636 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 397.8 419.366225166 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.6914622959 49.2860985944 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.6428571429 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6428571429 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.85714285714 7.06452816374 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 2.0 4.09492273731 49% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 8.0 4.19205298013 191% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.282187550056 0.272083759551 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.108322994792 0.0996497079465 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0766819624537 0.0662205650399 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.215421625635 0.162205337803 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0446455124452 0.0443174109184 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 13.3589403974 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 69.11 53.8541721854 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 11.0289183223 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.2367328918 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.85 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 57.0 63.6247240618 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted. The correct pattern:
para 1: introduction
para 2: doubt 1
para 3: doubt 2
para 4: doubt 3
Less contents wanted from the reading passages(25%), more content wanted from the lecture (75%).
Don't need a conclusion paragraph.
Read sample essays from ETS:
http://www.testbig.com/users/toeflwritingmaster
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.