TPO 30: integrated writing task
The main topic of both the reading passage and the lecture is about whether the ancient Greeks used a burning mirror in a battle with The Roman or not. The author claims that evidence indicates that it was not practical and it is a myth. However, the lecturer holds the opposite view and points out some reasons which indicate the mentioned points by the author are not convincing.
First of all, the author mentions that a burning mirror required advanced technology and the mirror would have been several meters and had a precise parabolic curvature. The ancient Greeks did not have such technology. By contrast, the lecturer refutes this notion by explaining that the Greeks did not make the burning mirror by a single mirror. They used dozens of small polished copper in order to make a huge mirror with parabolic shape. Furthermore, those days great mathematicians were familiar with the concept of a parabola and were able to make a parabolic shaped mirror by smaller mirrors.
Secondly, the author points out the result of an experiment in which it took about 10 minutes for a burning mirror to ignite a wooden object 30 meters away from it. Also, that object was stationary. Therefore, it is not probable that Greeks had used a burning mirror to set a moving ship on fire which would have taken a long time. On the contrary, the lecturer opposes with the author's explanation. She mentions that an important point has not been considered in that experiment. The ships made of materials other than wood, such as a sticky waterproof substance that could be ignited easily within a few seconds even when the ship was moving. Therefore burning mirror was an efficient weapon in their battle.
Finally, the author argues that at that time Greeks were familiar with flaming arrows and it was a common weapon. As both flaming arrows and burning mirrors were effective at the same distance, there was no reason to use a burning mirror. However, the speaker cogently rebuts this opinion by indicating that soldiers were able to see their rivals are throwing flaming arrows and therefore would have been ready for it to put out the fire. But they could not see the burning rise from the mirror. Hence, using a burning mirror was more effective and it could surprise the enemy.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 66, Rule ID: NEEDS_FIXED[1]
Message: "required advanced" is only accepted in certain dialects. For something more widely acceptable, try 'advancing' or 'to be advanced'.
Suggestion: advancing; to be advanced
...mentions that a burning mirror required advanced technology and the mirror would have be...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 380, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...contrary, the lecturer opposes with the authors explanation. She mentions that an impor...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 646, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
... seconds even when the ship was moving. Therefore burning mirror was an efficient weapon ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, second, secondly, so, therefore, such as, first of all, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 10.4613686534 201% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1888.0 1373.03311258 138% => OK
No of words: 392.0 270.72406181 145% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.81632653061 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44960558625 4.04702891845 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43185846622 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 145.348785872 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494897959184 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 594.0 419.366225166 142% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.9014977969 49.2860985944 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.4 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.35 7.06452816374 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.544042752412 0.272083759551 200% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.166370193524 0.0996497079465 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.106031093199 0.0662205650399 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.330937410068 0.162205337803 204% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.107893266471 0.0443174109184 243% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 13.3589403974 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.2367328918 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 63.6247240618 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => 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: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.