an ingenious weapon
Both the reading and lecture discuss an ingenious weapon, burning mirror, which is said to use by Greek in order to defend themselves in war. The passage cast doubt on such a possible usage and provide three reasons to deny this idea. The professor opposes to the discussion in passages by contradicting each reason of reading.
In the first place, the reading claims that the available technologies during the ancient Greeks weren't at all as thriving as to afford the making such a weapon. The lecture refutes this declaration by elaborating on the way of its making. He states that they were able to make small mirrors and assemble them together in a parabola shape, the shape which the passage considers as an unreachable for Greeks. In fact, they could make weapon not on single shape, but by some several pieces.
Secondly, according to passage, the time of setting a ship on fire was such that long that make it impossible to think the ability of them to set. In the passage view they had to stand at least ten minutes without any moving of ships. The professor disputes this by saying that the Greeks didn't use only of wood to fire, but also the got familiar with pitch which can emanate only in seconds. After a short time, it could spread through the all setting.
Third, the passage notes that the Greeks already had flaming arrows by which they could shoot during sea's enemies. They didn't need at all to go toward new weapons especially both of them, the flaming arrows and the burning mirror, had the similar effect. The professor employs the explanation of a new approach about using of burning mirror by Greeks to disagree with this passage's reason. He says that the burning mirror was new for Romans, so it could make them surprise and give a good opportunity to Greeks to have more effective weapons. Those common weapons were known by Romans.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 98, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: weren't
... technologies during the ancient Greeks werent at all as thriving as to afford the mak...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 290, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...disputes this by saying that the Greeks didnt use only of wood to fire, but also the ...
^^^^^
Line 6, column 121, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...y could shoot during seas enemies. They didnt need at all to go toward new weapons es...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, second, secondly, so, third, as to, at least, in fact, in the first place
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: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 57.0 30.3222958057 188% => 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: 1542.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 327.0 270.72406181 121% => OK
Chars per words: 4.71559633028 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25242769721 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.35092824641 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 145.348785872 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550458715596 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 469.8 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.2368747906 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.375 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4375 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.6875 7.06452816374 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 4.45695364238 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.145923453045 0.272083759551 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.048329605138 0.0996497079465 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0814266464864 0.0662205650399 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0946287932814 0.162205337803 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0719550626039 0.0443174109184 162% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 13.3589403974 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 68.1 53.8541721854 126% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.1 12.2367328918 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.91 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 68.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.5 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.