TPO 30, Integrated
The passage mainly explains that Greek port city of syracuse defanded themselves against Roman navy by the help of "burning mirror, and passage rejects this claim. the lecture, however, introduces some evidences that undermine such claim.
First, the article claims that Greek did not have developed technology for making huge parabolic shape mirror. The professor casts doubt on this point by saying that Greek made parabolic mirror by the help of small individual mirrors, which making of them were practical in that time, Therefore, Greek were able to make large parabolic mirror y attaching them together.
Second, burning mirror needed long time for making fire because wood was not flammable in the long distances, as author claims, is repudiated by the lecture. She mentions that unlike wood, other material like peach that used for sealing, was flamable much fast. Hence, Greek did not need long time for making fire on the ships.
Third, the reading points out that Greek were able to use other strategies for making fire like flaming arrow reasoning that it was more practical. In contrast, the speaking says that Roman solders were familiar with flaming arrows: therefore, they could defend themselves, while Roman solders were not familiar with burning mirror, and it was a surprising way since they could not see fire.
which making of them were practical in that time,
which are making of them practical in that time,
Sentence: The passage mainly explains that Greek port city of syracuse defanded themselves against Roman navy by the help of 'burning mirror, and passage rejects this claim. the lecture, however, introduces some evidences that undermine such claim.
Error: defanded Suggestion: defended
Sentence: She mentions that unlike wood, other material like peach that used for sealing, was flamable much fast.
Error: flamable Suggestion: No alternate word
flaws:
Some contents are not proper for the reading or lecture. read a sample:
http://www.testbig.com/integrated-toefl-writing-essays/tpo-30-integrate…
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 21 in 30
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 8 12
No. of Words: 216 250
No. of Characters: 1084 1200
No. of Different Words: 125 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.834 4.2
Average Word Length: 5.019 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.186 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 75 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 53 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 34 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 23 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.5 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.875 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.455 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.737 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.166 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4