The article states that there are several reasons to attack the story that the Greeks used a burning mirror against Roman's ships and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor explains that there are problems with the author's arguments and she refutes each of the author's reasons.
To begin with, the reading states that the ancient Greeks were not technologically advanced enough to make such a device. The professor refutes this point by stating that the Greeks were have good mathmatical skills. Moreover, such devices do not need high level of technology.
Second, the article claims that the burning mirror would have taken a long time to to make the damages that it supposes to do and mentions an experiment to illustrate this idea. However, the professor debates that. She mentions that the Greeks did not use just wood as in the experiment that the article aexpress, Instead they use a material that could transfere fire immeadiatly with a few seconds rather than ten menutes. In adition, it can do that even when Roman's ships were moving.
Third, the reading avers that the Greeks was using flamming arrows and burning mirror does not seem like an improvement on this weapon. The lecture opposes this point by saying that the Roman soldiers were not famillear with flaming arrows. Terefore, they trying to find out a new more effective weapon. She states that the burning mirror were surprizing and much effective than flaming arrows.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 183, Rule ID: WERE_VBB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'where' or 'we'?
Suggestion: where; we
...s this point by stating that the Greeks were have good mathmatical skills. Moreover,...
^^^^
Line 3, column 188, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'had'.
Suggestion: had
...s point by stating that the Greeks were have good mathmatical skills. Moreover, such...
^^^^
Line 5, column 81, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: to
...ing mirror would have taken a long time to to make the damages that it supposes to do...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, moreover, second, so, third, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1225.0 1373.03311258 89% => OK
No of words: 243.0 270.72406181 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.04115226337 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94822203886 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.38305363039 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 132.0 145.348785872 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.543209876543 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 367.2 419.366225166 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.3340263292 49.2860985944 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.2307692308 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6923076923 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.92307692308 7.06452816374 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.0604325986024 0.272083759551 22% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0228660816374 0.0996497079465 23% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0254474184965 0.0662205650399 38% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0383703304193 0.162205337803 24% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0215963621422 0.0443174109184 49% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => 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: 11.95 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 57.0 63.6247240618 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.