TPO 30
In the reading passage, the author claims that thre are three viable explanation for neglecting applying a burning mirror, which was an ancient Greek weapon used 2200 years ago, when they were in war with Roman. However, finding all the ideas implausible and questionable the professor casts doubt on what is presented in the text, and believes that all of the points mentioned in the reading are inconvincing; therefore, he states some evidence to the contrary.
At first, the author argues that the Greeks, in that era, had not progresseed enough to generate such developed tools since not only did it require a wide polished copper but it also would have to be manifactured accurately. Conversely, the lecturer points out that experiments have revealed that even the small flat of a polished copper could have caused such fire. Moreover, the mathematical experiments () ratify this issue as well and the Greeks were capable to percisely produce the polished copper flats in small size. Consequently, they were technically enable to produce a burning mirror.
In adiition, the reading passage holds the view that setting up such fire necessiteted to remain the roman ship unmoved for rather 30 minutues which is absolutely imossible idea. On the other hand, the professor dismisses this idea by clarifying the fact that this is true if the Romans' ships had been entirely created from the wood, but thet were not nonetheless. Indeed, a substant called pitch were utilized to make the Romans' ships water proof which quickly got fired and this flam would have easily scattered into the woody part of the ships.
Finally, the author asserts that there is not any justification for applyig the burning mirror while another Greek's weapon which was prevalent in that period of time, flamin arrows. THe professor, thought, disputes this idea by subscribing the fact that the Roman's force was complitely aware of the presence of such device by the Greek army. Therefore, having used another weapon, Greeks not ontly surprised Romans, but aslo this approach was far more efficient. Indeed, since flaming arrows' fire was easily noticeable while the fire were comming from the new device was hidden at the frist glance and suddenly they just saw their ships burning in fire.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 352, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...resented in the text, and believes that all of the points mentioned in the reading are inc...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 406, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
.... Moreover, the mathematical experiments ratify this issue as well and the Greeks...
^^
Line 2, column 560, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'enabled'.
Suggestion: enabled
...ze. Consequently, they were technically enable to produce a burning mirror. In adiit...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 437, Rule ID: EN_COMPOUNDS
Message: This word is normally spelled as one.
Suggestion: waterproof
... were utilized to make the Romans ships water proof which quickly got fired and this flam ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 462, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e Romans ships water proof which quickly got fired and this flam would have easil...
^^
Line 4, column 153, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...eeks weapon which was prevalent in that period of time, flamin arrows. THe professor, thought,...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, conversely, finally, first, however, if, moreover, nonetheless, so, therefore, well, while, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1896.0 1373.03311258 138% => OK
No of words: 373.0 270.72406181 138% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08310991957 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39467950092 4.04702891845 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52802930293 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 145.348785872 149% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.581769436997 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 585.9 419.366225166 140% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.116997792494 855% => Less interrogative sentences wanted.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 21.2450331126 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 44.1613502066 49.2860985944 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.846153846 110.228320801 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.6923076923 21.698381199 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.3076923077 7.06452816374 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.394143277839 0.272083759551 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.127425886874 0.0996497079465 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.056677737183 0.0662205650399 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.216464230147 0.162205337803 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0497032805579 0.0443174109184 112% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.8 13.3589403974 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 53.8541721854 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.78 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.26 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 63.6247240618 157% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 10.7273730684 172% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.