summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on specific points made in the reading passage.
The reading and the lecture are both about burning mirrors and their effectiveness in burning roman ships by Greek of Syracuse. The author of the article believes that this story is not realistic and Greek could not have had such mirrors. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. She is of the opinion that the reasons made by the article are not convincing.
To begin with, the article states that building this sophisticated mirrors needs a great deal of knowledge and technology; however, Greek was not enough technologically advanced. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. She claims that Greeks was able to create small mirrors with a very precise parabolic curvature, which were single sheet.
Secondly, it is said in the reading that it would take Greeks a relatively great deal of time to make a fire on Roman ships. Additionally, the target object should be fixed. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that the experiment mentioned by the author is for a ship which is totally built of wood. Nevertheless, Roman ships would not have made of sheer wood, but they include a water proof substance named Pitch which catches fire quickly. It means that, according to lecturer, if the Pitch got fired, the fire spread out through the ship immediately.
Third, it is stated in the article that Greeks had already possessed a weapon as efficacious as burning mirror at the same distances, flaming arrows, to set fire on Romans ship. Therefore, it was implausible to create and implement this kid of mirrors. In contrast, the lecturer states that using burning mirrors were much more surprising that flaming arrows were. He notes that Romans were already ready to defend flaming arrows.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 240, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... Greek could not have had such mirrors. The lecturer challenges the claims made by ...
^^^
Line 5, column 394, Rule ID: EN_COMPOUNDS
Message: This word is normally spelled as one.
Suggestion: waterproof
... made of sheer wood, but they include a water proof substance named Pitch which catches fir...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1452.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 288.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04166666667 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64574219732 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545138888889 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 439.2 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.2210687948 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.75 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.125 7.06452816374 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.0874062784241 0.272083759551 32% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0371459369915 0.0996497079465 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0496070057588 0.0662205650399 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0562933053601 0.162205337803 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0474010187292 0.0443174109184 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.