The reading refutes an ancient belief that the Greeks had used an innovative weapon called "burning mirror" to defend their port city of Syracuse from Roman navy two thousand years ago. This weapon is alleged to be constructed from a curved-shaped copper sheet surface focusing the sunlight on a marine target. However, the lecturer finds all the putative reasons stated by the reading passage either superficial or fallacious and debunks them one by one.
First, the idea that from a technological point of view, Greeks were not capable of building a Brobdingnagian integrated mirror is deemed specious in that by their ability to calculate the precise shape of the mirror through their advanced mathematics they were readily competent to manufacture the parabolic shape of the mirror by assembling several fragments of flat polished copper sheets joint together.
Second, the lecturer strongly opposes the reading which grasped to an experiment in which it took a long time to set a wooden piece on fire. On the contrary, the lecturer posits that no(not?) only ancient boats were made of woods, they had also other materials in their body, such as an inflammable sealant called pitch which was used not only to close off the gaps between wooden boards, it was also used to waterproof the whole assembly. In contrast to wood, that combustible substance can be ignited in seconds and then spread the fire to the wooden bulk of the boat. According to the lecturer, this combination of building materials was sufficient for setting a moving boat on fire in a blink of an eye.
And finally, in the discourse, the lecturer enumerates some positive aspects of burning mirror in terms of speed, efficacy, and surprising factor over the popular weapon of that era: flaming arrows. Although these arrows were able to stop a moving boat by burning it down, the Romans were well conversant with them and know how to counteract and extinguish the fire with alacrity. On the other hand, since burning mirror was unacquainted(sth is unacquainted?), it had the faculty to bewilder the enemy and destroy its navy like a magical happenstance.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 191, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Only
...ntrary, the lecturer posits that nonot? only ancient boats were made of woods, they ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, second, so, then, well, in contrast, such as, in contrast to, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 30.3222958057 191% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1791.0 1373.03311258 130% => OK
No of words: 353.0 270.72406181 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07365439093 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33454660006 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77768937541 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 145.348785872 139% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.57223796034 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 558.9 419.366225166 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 21.2450331126 137% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 83.8932853888 49.2860985944 170% => OK
Chars per sentence: 149.25 110.228320801 135% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.4166666667 21.698381199 136% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.5833333333 7.06452816374 150% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.361738111255 0.272083759551 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111407097689 0.0996497079465 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0661724739871 0.0662205650399 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.199490320114 0.162205337803 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0372427567144 0.0443174109184 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 13.3589403974 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 53.8541721854 78% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.0289183223 132% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.72 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.19 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 63.6247240618 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.7273730684 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.498013245 130% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.