TPO 30
The reading and lecture are about whether ancient Greeks used burning mirrors to set fire on the boat of Roman boats. The mentions that this idea is inefficient and not likely to be used in ancient world. The lecture is the opinion of explanations remarked in the reading is not convincing.
To begin with, the author states that technology was not enough advanced to create this device because it is need to be wide enough and parabolic structure requires large knowledge. Nonetheless, the lecturer rebuts this interpretation by claiming that dozens of copper fragment was found, which posits that this acquisition is capable of providing evidence about case. Moreover, she says that great mathematician who had understood formula of parabola was available to use the information for building the device.
Secondly, according to the reading, it is mentioned that using this tool to kindle fire on the boat will take around ten meters regarding space between equipment and ship. Additionally, using the equipment for a long time to ignite blaze on the vessel which is moving is inefficient. The lecturer, however, states that this explanation would have been compelling if Greeks had tried to kindle wood. In the truth, there are more materials on the Roman ship other than wood and Greeks probably utilized pitch for their specific purpose. To be more specific, using pitch is efficient since this stuff catches fire rapidly and fire is able to spread to wood no matter whether ship is moving or not.
Finally, employing this is unreasonable since they had flaming arrows which has equal effect for their objective. On the other hand, the lecturer challenged this specific argument by providing an another possible explanation. She remarks that Roman army studied and devised method which works against the arrows though flaming arrow is effective. Thereby, utilizing new weapon which is hard to be revealed can be surprising and make sudden attack.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 206, 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.
...not likely to be used in ancient world. The lecture is the opinion of explanations ...
^^^
Line 7, column 194, Rule ID: AN_ANOTHER[1]
Message: One of these determiners is redundant in this context. Choose only one: 'a possible' or 'another possible'.
Suggestion: a possible; another possible
...ged this specific argument by providing an another possible explanation. She remarks that Roman arm...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, moreover, nonetheless, regarding, second, secondly, so, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 10.4613686534 239% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1642.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 318.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16352201258 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22286093782 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64394915784 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 145.348785872 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.588050314465 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 509.4 419.366225166 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.4724570943 49.2860985944 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.466666667 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.66666666667 7.06452816374 109% => 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: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.256244665968 0.272083759551 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0799323156065 0.0996497079465 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0662260706463 0.0662205650399 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.141865626228 0.162205337803 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0466089898509 0.0443174109184 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 13.3589403974 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27 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.