tpo-30
In the reading, the author claims that using the burning mirror which was an ingenious weapon by Greeks to defend themselves against the Roman navy 2200 years ago is just a myth by pointing out 3 reasons of support. However, finding all the reasons questionable and implausible, the lecturer repudiates the claim and presents some evidence to the contrary.
At first, the author argues that the ancient Greeks weren not technologically advanced enough to make a very precise and large parabolic curvature. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that they did not have to form a large mirror from a single piece of copper. The Greeks could assemble several small pieces of coppers together and form a large parabolic curvature.
In addition, the reading passage holds the view that the burning mirror would have need a long time to fire the woods of the Roman navy's ships.So, this weapon have been very inefficacious. That being said, the lecturer disputes this reason by clarifying the fact that the Greeks did not have to concentrate the Sun's rays on woods. They could make the Sun's rays concentrate on the pitch which was a material used in the structure of the ships. Pitch could catch fire very quickly and in seconds the fires spreaded to the wooden material even when ships were moving.
Finally, the author draws attention to the other weapon used by the Greeks, i.e. flaming arrows, which would have been effective at about the same distances as the last point in supporting the claim. Yet again, the lecturer dismisses it by pointing out that the Roman navy was familiar with flaming arrows and they could defend their ships against this weapon but they did not familiar with burning mirror. Owing to the being unknown characteristic of this weapon, burning mirror was much surprising and consequently more effective.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 143, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: So
...fire the woods of the Roman navys ships.So, this weapon have been very inefficacio...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, conversely, finally, first, however, if, second, so, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1527.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 308.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95779220779 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51864986642 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.522727272727 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 453.6 419.366225166 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.0514089387 49.2860985944 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.25 110.228320801 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6666666667 21.698381199 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.91666666667 7.06452816374 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.442293826214 0.272083759551 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.149351077979 0.0996497079465 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0781805740951 0.0662205650399 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.250659794066 0.162205337803 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0619308324716 0.0443174109184 140% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.3589403974 111% => 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: 11.78 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.