Both the author of the reading and the lecturer discuss whether the "burning mirror", an original weapon that Greeks used against Roman navy, was real or not. The author believes that the "burning mirror" was a myth and gives three reasons of support whereas, the professor finds these reasons unconvincing and rejects each of them with solid pieces of evidence.
It is claimed in the passage that not only the ancient Greeks did not have advanced technology in order to build such a weapon, but also other civilizations did not. The speaker, on the other hand, contends that some experiments show that it is possible to arrange a sheet of copper and give it a parabolic shape. Moreover, some mathematicians were able to do calculations and built such a device.
According to the author, in order to cause a fire on enemies' ships would take too much time by using the "burning mirror". The lecturer, however, opposes this point by explaining that the "burning mirror" has a sticky pitch that could burn in seconds and set the ships fire. It is also easy for the fire to spread on woods with this sticky substance. Thus, the "burning mirror" was an effective weapon.
Lastly, it is stated in the article that ancient Greeks might not have needed to use the "burning mirror" since there was also another alternative and a similar weapon called the "flaming arrow. The professor, on the contrary, draws attention to the point that Roman navies were familiar with the "flaming arrow" so, it was possible to avoid escaping from being hit. However, since the "burning mirror" was not obvious to notice, sudden movements to escape from them would not be possible. Therefore, the "burning mirror" was a more effective weapon than the "flying arrow".
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, lastly, moreover, second, so, therefore, thus, whereas, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1559.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 297.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24915824916 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0993956395 2.5805825403 120% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545454545455 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 480.6 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => 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: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.0676210016 49.2860985944 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.923076923 110.228320801 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8461538462 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.46153846154 7.06452816374 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
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: 0.319672597955 0.272083759551 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.145204719799 0.0996497079465 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0596489844749 0.0662205650399 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.21207933595 0.162205337803 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0471209958529 0.0443174109184 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.3589403974 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.47 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.7273730684 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.