A little over 2200 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 arrow. 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 Greek had no reason to build a weapon like a burning mirror..
The reading and the lecture are both about the Greek weapon which is burning mirror was used for defending themselves from the Roman navy. the passage brings forward the reasons this device didn't really appear in the ancient age, while the professor shows the possible points that support the existence of this weapon.
First of all, the Burning mirror couldn't be built because of not enough the advancement of technology. as a result, the manufacture of a large sheet of copper wasn't feasible as well. but the lecturer opposes this point by stating that the flat pieces of sheet copper could be arranged to produce a parabolic curvature, which means that burning mirror could also be manufactured.
Secondly, the passage put forward another reason that by using this weapon would take a long time to set the ships on the fire due to taking approximately 30 minutes. According to that the Roman ships wouldn't stay put to catch on the fire.
While the professor argues that only 10 minutes was taken by using a burning mirror, and the materials used to build these Roman ships were the pitch which could get easily caught on the fire while the ships moving.
Finally, The passage illustrates that this weapon wasn't the improvement of the Greeks. Furthermore, the distance of flaming arrows and a burning mirror wouldn't be exactly similar. Anyways, This point is challenged by the lecturer that the flaming arrows were really common in ancient time so when using them was quite obvious; on the other hand, using a burning mirror; could deceive the enemies, set the fire on their boats in unexpected spots as well.
Comments
The text and lecture are both
The text and lecture are both about the Greeks’ weapon, called a “burning mirror” were used for defending themselves from the Roman navy. The passage brings forward the reasons this device did not certainly appear in the ancient period, while the professor shows the possible points that support the existence of this weapon.
First of all, the burning mirror could not be built because of the not-advancement of the technology. The manufacturing of the large sheet of the copper was not feasible as well.
However, in the lecture, the professor opposes this point by standing that the flat piece of the sheet copper could be arranged to produce a parabolic curvature, which means the burning mirror could also be manufactured.
Secondly, the passage put forward another reason. According to the experiment, by using the weapon, it takes a long time to set the ship on fire like approximately 30 minutes. In addition to that, the ship must be still perfect for this case. Yet, the professor contradicts this points, from the experiment, only 10 minutes was taken by using the burning mirror, moreover, the material used to build up the ship were pith so that is to say, those are vulnerable to catching fire easily.
Finally, The passage illustrates that this weapon wasn't the improvement of the Greeks. Furthermore, the distance of the flaming arrow and the burning mirror are not exactly the same, anyway, this point is challenged by the lecture, the usage of the flaming arrow is well known and common in ancient time, on the other hand, using the burning mirror could reach the enemies, set the fire on their boat in unexpected direction as well.
This is edit ver form me. I am not a native English speaker tho but hope it helps you in some ways or might better just get this help as a different perspective from English learner fellow like you!
The text and lecture are both
PS. your essay is already really good!! so impressive!!
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 140, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...fending themselves from the Roman navy. the passage brings forward the reasons this...
^^^
Line 1, column 191, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... brings forward the reasons this device didnt really appear in the ancient age, while...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 34, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...on. First of all, the Burning mirror couldnt be built because of not enough the adva...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 104, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: As
...t enough the advancement of technology. as a result, the manufacture of a large sh...
^^
Line 3, column 160, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
... manufacture of a large sheet of copper wasnt feasible as well. but the lecturer oppo...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 184, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: But
...sheet of copper wasnt feasible as well. but the lecturer opposes this point by stat...
^^^
Line 5, column 202, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...utes. According to that the Roman ships wouldnt stay put to catch on the fire. While t...
^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 51, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...he passage illustrates that this weapon wasnt the improvement of the Greeks. Furtherm...
^^^^^
Line 8, column 153, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
... of flaming arrows and a burning mirror wouldnt be exactly similar. Anyways, This point...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, anyway, but, finally, first, furthermore, really, second, secondly, so, well, while, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1349.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 275.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 4.90545454545 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07223819929 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.37684699821 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.527272727273 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 405.9 419.366225166 97% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.7068477946 49.2860985944 127% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.636363636 110.228320801 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 21.698381199 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.2727272727 7.06452816374 174% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 4.19205298013 215% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.129765128954 0.272083759551 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0565201146476 0.0996497079465 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0453800984303 0.0662205650399 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0751865003852 0.162205337803 46% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.039579047373 0.0443174109184 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.21 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.