In this set of materials, the author of the reading passage expresses three hypotheses of burning mirror is just a myth and the Greeks of Syracuse never really built such a divice in 220 years ago. However, the professor thinks that the author's theories contain some defects.
First of all, the author states that ancient Greeks were not technongically advanced enough to make such a divice. On the contrary, the professor indicates that ancient Greeks did not build the mirror from single sheet into parabola. From the experiments, ancient Greeks may build the parabola from donzens pieces of coppers. Hence, small pieces form into large mirro.
In addition, the author claims that the burning mirror would have taken a long time to set the ships on fire. However, the professor asserts that according the author's reason, the author assumes that the ancient boat made from wooden. That is the reason that setting the boat on fire takes 10 minutes. In the fact, the Roman ships made from other materials such as pitch which is some kind of waterproof material. This material will be set on fire in second.
Finally, the author raises the point that the ancient Greeks already had the flaming arrows, it seems reluctant have both burning mirror and flaming arrows. On the other hand, the professor refutes the author's idea by saying that enemies was familiar with flaming arrows, and they will put off the fire. Hence, enemies had have never seen the mirros before, it would surprising enemies because they could not observe the mirror.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 203, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...e other hand, the professor refutes the authors idea by saying that enemies was familia...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 324, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'had'.
Suggestion: had
...ll put off the fire. Hence, enemies had have never seen the mirros before, it would ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 368, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'surprise'
Suggestion: surprise
... never seen the mirros before, it would surprising enemies because they could not observe ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, hence, however, may, really, second, so, in addition, kind of, such as, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1286.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 259.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96525096525 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01166760082 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.22767543134 2.5805825403 86% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.53667953668 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 378.9 419.366225166 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.2219601669 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.8571428571 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.71428571429 7.06452816374 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 4.33554083885 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.402877211531 0.272083759551 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.134425133977 0.0996497079465 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0999861717884 0.0662205650399 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.229950373675 0.162205337803 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0570888541936 0.0443174109184 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.88 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 63.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.0 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.