The reading passage states that Greek's technological device, ''burning mirror'', which set Romans' ship on fire is only a myth in story books and provides three main points in support. Nonetheless, the professor in the lecture believes that the arguments in the reading are not convincing and expresses three specific ideas to underscore her standpoint.
First of all, the reading claims that Greeks did not have enough knowledge to introduce technological devices like burning mirror. This device needs plenty of experts to precisely make different parts such as curvature and parabolic shape. However, the professor in the lecture rebuts this point by explaining the production procedure of burning mirrors. She points out that bunches of small copper pieces are collected together to form uniform shapes which owns both parabolic shape and supports accurate curvature. Hence, this device could be produced by considering productions' pieces.
Secondly, the reading states that setting a ship on fire needs some incidental phenomenon such as time and motivation. In this regard, ships should be constant and underway ten minutes sun light to go on fore. Nevertheless, the professor open new understanding to this point by declaring the constituents of ships. She mentions that ships contain other sticky material like pitch to fill the gap between woods. Indeed, pitches fired in a fracture of second and whenever the fire started, it will embrace the whole structure of ships consisting it wood.
Finally, the reading mentions that some other methods were introduced to Greeks soldiers that may seem frequent. Actually, the utilization of flaming arrows shows the same function as burning mirror. On the contrary, the professor shed the light on this issue by displaying the differences between these two kinds. She says that Romans were unfamiliar to burning mirror and whenever they saw their ships under fire, without any extraneous objects, they got amazed. Hence flaming arrows were not as influential as burning mirrors in the eyes of Romans' soldiers.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 548, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'woods'?
Suggestion: woods
... whole structure of ships consisting it wood. Finally, the reading mentions that ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 466, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ny extraneous objects, they got amazed. Hence flaming arrows were not as influential ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, as to, such as, first of all, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 30.3222958057 145% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1742.0 1373.03311258 127% => OK
No of words: 324.0 270.72406181 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.37654320988 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24264068712 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68167075248 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 145.348785872 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.595679012346 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 518.4 419.366225166 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 29.7968902955 49.2860985944 60% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.470588235 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0588235294 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.82352941176 7.06452816374 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.27373068433 211% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.317951784383 0.272083759551 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0971920244022 0.0996497079465 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0851087409534 0.0662205650399 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.184510115892 0.162205337803 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0326230879575 0.0443174109184 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.92 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 63.6247240618 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.