The reading passage and the lecture discuss about the burning mirror constructed by the Greeks. Despite that, the professor thinks that the reasons suspecting the burning mirror is not practical and unconvincing. She casts doubt on every single point the reading make and provide details to support her idea.
To begin with, the writer claims that the ancient Greeks did not have technology to build advanced device. However, the lecturer argues that the Greeks could use small and individual pieces to form a large flat mirrors. As a result, she can not give a nod to the author in terms of the first point.
Secondly, about how long it is required to set the ships on fire, the reading suggests it took ten minutes whereas the speaker disagrees this thought. She thinks that the ship was also made with other materials such as sticky pitch. It was easy to get on fire in a second. Moreover, the fire could spread to the wood even when on moving ships. Apparently, the lecturer disproves its counterpart in the reading.
In addition, the author indicates that the Greeks already had flaming arrows so they were not required to build a similar weapon such as burning mirrors. The professor, on the other hand, points out because the Roman were familiar with flaming arrows, the burning mirror could be an unexpected weapon and would be more effective than flaming arrows. Therefore, she reckon the third point is not convincing.
To sum up, the writer and the lecturer hold conflicting views. It is obvious that they will have difficulties finding common ground on this topic.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 212, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'mirror'?
Suggestion: mirror
... individual pieces to form a large flat mirrors. As a result, she can not give a nod to...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 367, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'she' must be used with a third-person verb: 'reckons'.
Suggestion: reckons
...ve than flaming arrows. Therefore, she reckon the third point is not convincing. ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, whereas, in addition, such as, as a result, to begin with, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => 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: 1320.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 269.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.90706319703 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0498419064 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.41952323284 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.591078066914 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 385.2 419.366225166 92% => 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: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.5248636146 49.2860985944 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.5 110.228320801 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.8125 21.698381199 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.9375 7.06452816374 155% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
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: 0.117547694882 0.272083759551 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0312505378318 0.0996497079465 31% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0400896626645 0.0662205650399 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0572514319906 0.162205337803 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0462717362196 0.0443174109184 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.1 13.3589403974 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 72.16 53.8541721854 134% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 11.0289183223 65% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.9 12.2367328918 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.01 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 65.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.5 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.