The reading and the lecture are both about how ancient Greeks protected themselves from Romans. They made a weapon which they called “burning mirror”. The author of the reading feels that burning mirror is a myth at that time. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. She is of the opinion that the weapon is true.
The author mentions that Greeks could not invent the burning mirror because they did not have the technology to make it. Moreover, if they want to fired on the ship, the mirror’s shape would be precise parabolic curvature. The lecturer challenged the reading’s opinion. The lecturer said they do not need to make large mirror because they just stick small mirrors together to create a parabolic shape. Additionally, she says that Greeks know this fact.
Secondly, the writer suggests that burning mirror has to take a long time to get a fire on a ship. In the article, it would take thirty minutes to get burned in a stable posture. However the ships will move so it's not useful. The lecturer rebuts this by mentioning that they are aiming for the material that is called pitch. Furthermore this pitch can get burned for only few seconds.
Finally, the author posits that burning mirror does not seem effective because Greeks already have flaming arrows. In contrast, the lecturer's position is burning mirror is more effective to fight with an enemy. He notes that when Roman watches the mirror they do not know that it is dangerous. Thus, they cannot see the fire so magically Romans’ ships were burning then they will be surprised.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 180, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...utes to get burned in a stable posture. However the ships will move so its not useful. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 239, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ill move so its not useful. The lecturer rebuts this by mentioning that they are ...
^^
Line 5, column 327, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Furthermore,
... for the material that is called pitch. Furthermore this pitch can get burned for only few ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...h can get burned for only few seconds. Finally, the author posits that burning ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, furthermore, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, thus, as to, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 7.30242825607 14% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => 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: 1315.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 270.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87037037037 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05360046442 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.38055969719 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.555555555556 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 392.4 419.366225166 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 26.4293339926 49.2860985944 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 69.2105263158 110.228320801 63% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.2105263158 21.698381199 65% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.36842105263 7.06452816374 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.165511290466 0.272083759551 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0567193294888 0.0996497079465 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0407263349056 0.0662205650399 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11276096365 0.162205337803 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0405976972362 0.0443174109184 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.6 13.3589403974 64% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.73 53.8541721854 122% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 11.0289183223 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.37 12.2367328918 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.72 8.42419426049 92% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.