Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they challenge the specific point made in the reading passage.
Both the reading and lecture are about a mysterious weapon called burning mirror, and whether it was used by ancient Greeks against Romans. According to the reading, building and utilizing such weapon was not possible and proves three reasons of support. However, the professor casts doubt on all of the provided reasons.
To begin with, the reading states that the Greeks were not technologically advanced enough to build such mirror. Also, a mirror that could focus the sunlight on ships had to be several meters long, and making such mirror was not possible for the Greeks. Nevertheless, the professor says that the mirror should not have been one single sheet of copper. They could polish several sheets, put the them together, and with assembling small mirrors together, a large mirror could be made.
Secondly, the reading posits that, a mirror requires a long time to put woods of the Roman ships on fire, and the target of the mirror has to be immobile meanwhile. However, the professor argues that the reading only mentions woods as an object of burning mirror. The Roman ships were not only made of woods. They also used a material in their ships called perch. Peach sets on fire in seconds, and the fire can spread to woods used in the ship quickly.
Finally, the reading explains that burning mirror was not a surpassing weapon in compare to what Greeks had before, flaming arrows. Though, professor disagrees, and elaborates on this by saying that Romans were probably familiar with flaming arrows. They were prepared for that, and were ready to put out the fire caused by flaming arrows quickly. On the other hand, they could not see the target of the mirror. It would have been more surprising for them because they could not simply guess which part of the ship is going to be set on fire.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 294, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
.... However, the professor casts doubt on all of the provided reasons. To begin with, ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 391, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'them'?
Suggestion: the; them
.... They could polish several sheets, put the them together, and with assembling small mir...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, however, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, while, as to, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 5.01324503311 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1511.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 312.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.84294871795 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20279927342 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.29009494246 2.5805825403 89% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.50641025641 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 440.1 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 7.0 1.51434878587 462% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.6316338759 49.2860985944 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.8823529412 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3529411765 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.23529411765 7.06452816374 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => 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: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.102515377853 0.272083759551 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0371930872173 0.0996497079465 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0325205900174 0.0662205650399 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0637150443978 0.162205337803 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.025916110297 0.0443174109184 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.5 13.3589403974 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 70.13 53.8541721854 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.9 11.0289183223 72% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.79 12.2367328918 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.52 8.42419426049 89% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.