A little over 2,200 years ago, the Roman navy attacked the Greek port city of Syracuse. According to some ancient historians, the Greeks defended themselves with an ingenious weapon called a “burning mirror”: a polished copper surface curved to focus the Sun’s rays onto Roman ships, causing them to catch fire. However, we have several reasons to suspect that the story of the burning mirror is just a myth and the Greeks of Syracuse never really built such a device. First, the ancient Greeks were not technologically advanced enough to make such a device. A mirror that would focus sunlight with sufficient intensity to set ships on fire would have to be several meters wide. Moreover, the mirror would have to have a very precise parabolic curvature (a curvature derived from a geometric shape known as the parabola). The technology for manufacturing a large sheet of copper with such specifications did not exist in the ancient world. Second, the burning mirror would have taken a long time to set the ships on fire. In an experiment conducted to determine whether a burning mirror was feasible, a device concentrating the Sun’s rays on a wooden object 30 meters away took ten minutes to set the object on fire; and during that time, the object had to be unmoving. It is unlikely that Roman ships stayed perfectly still for that much time. Such a weapon would therefore have been very impractical and ineffective. Third, a burning mirror does not seem like an improvement on a weapon that the Greeks already had: flaming arrows. Shooting at an enemy’s ships with flaming arrows was a common way of setting the ships on fire. The burning mirror and flaming arrows would have been effective at about the same distance. So the Greeks had no reason to build a weapon like a burning mirror.
In the reading passage, the author discusses three kinds of the reasons why the story of the burning mirror is myth, While the lecturer claims that what reading passage states is not convincing and disputes those ideas presented in the reading passage by several proofs.
First, the writer in the reading passage states that the ancient Greeks didn't have the technology to manipulate such device. By contrast, the lecturer, views to this issue is from an opposite angle. According to the lecturer they might have to use several little parts of the mirrors to produce this device.
Second, the belief in the reading passage is that it is impossible to burn ship by mirror and mentions to the experiment which is show it takes ten minutes to burn a constant wooden object in 30 meters distance. However, the speaker refutes this view point by saying that ships doesn't make just by the wood. Moreover, in the ancient time, Romans were used pitch in their ships which is burn by mirror just in the second and after the burn start is would be disperse to other part of the ship.
Additionally, the author argues that the effect of the burning mirror and the flaming arrows on that distance is the same, while the speaker demonstrate a different idea she says that the Roman ships just saw the mirror and suddenly the fire started.
In conclusion, the professor clearly identifies the weaknesses in the reasons of the reading passage and convincingly shows that the central argument in the reading passage, the idea that the burning mirrors is myth, is actually incorrect.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 73, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... passage states that the ancient Greeks didnt have the technology to manipulate such ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 279, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...es this view point by saying that ships doesnt make just by the wood. Moreover, in the...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1312.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 269.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87732342007 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0498419064 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.39060339478 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.509293680297 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 391.5 419.366225166 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 29.0 21.2450331126 137% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 69.8951595844 49.2860985944 142% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.777777778 110.228320801 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.8888888889 21.698381199 138% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06452816374 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.112939638683 0.272083759551 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0506323032168 0.0996497079465 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0272148240203 0.0662205650399 41% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0625479499529 0.162205337803 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0266207621841 0.0443174109184 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 13.3589403974 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.5 53.8541721854 94% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.0289183223 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.62 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.54 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.498013245 130% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.