Flying of the Pterosaurs
Both the author and the lecturer discuss the possibility of the use of burning mirrors by ancient Greeks. The passage claims that they did not utilize this weapon. The professor, on the other hand, completely rejects whatever mentioned in the reading by citing three reasons.
First, both the author and the professor talk about the complexity of the burning mirror. According to the passage, the ancient Greeks were not technologically improved enough to make this complex device. The lecturer, nevertheless, rejects the author's view and illustrates the idea that this weapon was not a complex and intricate object and it was made from the assembly of many small mirrors. Thus, they could construct that without any problems.
Second of all, both the reading and the lecturer discuss the time which the burning mirror needs to set the ships on fire. The author argues that it takes ten minutes to sets an object on fire. The professor validates the idea emphasizing that they should not need to set the wood on the object. There was material in their ships that fired as fast as wood did, so the burning mirror could set this particular object on fire as soon as possible.
Eventually, the passage and the lecturer address the subject of similarity of the burning mirror to a weapon that the Greeks had. The passage goes on to mentions that the burning mirror does not seem like on a weapon that the Greeks already had. In contrast, the professor points out that Roman soldiers were not familiar with this weapon, so they surprised when the Greeks soldier utilized this weapon.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, nevertheless, second, so, thus, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 5.01324503311 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1315.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 269.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.88847583643 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0498419064 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43322110487 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 133.0 145.348785872 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.494423791822 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 390.6 419.366225166 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => 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: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.6912100912 49.2860985944 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.9285714286 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2142857143 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.92857142857 7.06452816374 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.08 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.87 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.