tpo 30
The reading and the listening materials have a debate on " burning mirror" as a advanced weapon which are used by Greek against Roman navy. The writer puts forward 3 main hypotheses, which are refuted by following speaker.
First, the writer proposes that ancient Greek knowledge was low and they did not know the technology for making burning mirror with parabolic curvature. While, the speaker views this issue from an opposite angle. According to her Greeks can easily make the needed instrument ; because many small mirror could produce the precise parabolic shape.
The second preposition offered by writer is that at least 10 minutes time is needed for focusing the sun's rays, and then firing a wooden part of ship, in addition, in this time the ship should not move, in conclusion, this device is not practical. However, the speaker casts doubt on this assumption by saying that there is other material in ship that can fire easily in few seconds such as water-proof agent or perch even in ship-moving situation. As a result, it is not needed to 10 minutes time.
Lastly, the writer suggests that flaming arrows had similar application in Greeks wars, So it was unnecessary for making burning mirror. On contrary, the speaker holds an opposite view. She explains that burning mirrors were more effective that flaming arrows, because the later ones were applied by solders. The Rome navy could see them easily, but the burning mirrors could surprise them.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 89, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...ebate on ' burning mirror' as a advanced weapon which are used by Greek...
^
Line 3, column 32, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...aker. First, the writer proposes that ancient Greek knowledge was low and they...
^^
Line 3, column 155, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “While” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...urning mirror with parabolic curvature. While, the speaker views this issue from an o...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 392, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he burning mirrors could surprise them.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, lastly, second, so, then, while, at least, in addition, in conclusion, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1236.0 1373.03311258 90% => OK
No of words: 244.0 270.72406181 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.06557377049 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.95227774224 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4652655761 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.643442622951 0.540411800872 119% => OK
syllable_count: 375.3 419.366225166 89% => 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: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.9823419904 49.2860985944 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.0 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3333333333 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.33333333333 7.06452816374 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => 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: 0.373171968141 0.272083759551 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11759736669 0.0996497079465 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0777193858039 0.0662205650399 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.202255591023 0.162205337803 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0489086721903 0.0443174109184 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.