The reading and the lecture are both about the “burning mirror”. The author of the passage feels that this story is implausible. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. She believes that there exists irrefutable evidence corroborating the existence of the mirror.
To begin with, the author argues that, the Greeks technology at the time forbade the creation of a mirror with those dimensions. The article mentions that the shape of the mirror has obeyed the geometric shape of a parabola. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. She claims that the mirror was not built by using a single piece of mirror. Instead, she asserts that the mirror was made by putting small parts of the mirror together. Additionally, she says that the Greeks were aware of the geometrical and physical characteristics of parabolas and therefore were able to build the mentioned mirror.
Secondly, the writer says that even if the Greeks were able to build such a massive mirror, burning an unmoving vessel would take a lot of time, let alone burning a moving ship. The lecturer, however, rebukes this by mentioning that the Greeks did not try to burn the wooden parts of the vessel. She elaborates on this by bringing up the point that the Greeks were trying to set the pitch on the ship on fire, which is an extremely flammable substance and can catch fire even if the vessel is moving.
Finally, the author posits that using the mirror was of no benefit to the Greeks. Moreover, in the article, it is stated that by the time, the Greeks were able to build flammable arrows, which were as effective as the mirror for the objective of setting enemy naval army on fire. In contrast, the lecturer’s position is that the Romans at the time were aware of flammable arrows, and therefore knew how to put the fire resulted from them off. She notes that using the mirror could surprise the Romans and be counted as a prominent advantage for the Greek army.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 47, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ading and the lecture are both about the apos;burning mirror apos;. The author of...
^^
Line 1, column 140, 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.
...e feels that this story is implausible. The lecturer challenges the claims made by ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, therefore, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 44.0 30.3222958057 145% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1638.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 343.0 270.72406181 127% => OK
Chars per words: 4.77551020408 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30351707066 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50242256125 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 145.348785872 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.495626822157 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 514.8 419.366225166 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.4742288753 49.2860985944 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.3529411765 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1764705882 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.11764705882 7.06452816374 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.379862783639 0.272083759551 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11897488761 0.0996497079465 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0703644126989 0.0662205650399 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.224098358542 0.162205337803 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0660865327471 0.0443174109184 149% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.44 12.2367328918 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.