The article states that Greek of Syracuse never really built a "burning mirror", that focused sunlight and burned Roman ships during the attack and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor explains claims are impractical and unconvincing and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading states that Greeks were not technologically advanced enough to make such a device because that would require making parabolic mirror from copper. The professor refutes this point by stating that Greeks didn't have to make a parabolic shape to achieve this. She explains that Greeks could use dozens flat copper and then arranged them in parabolic shape. According to the professor the Greek's mathematicians knew parabola and they could easily assemble mirror by using technic that they already had.
Second, the article claims that burning mirror would have taken a long time to set the ships on fire and ships should move. However, the professor contends that it took only ten minutes to burn the wood. She explains that Roman ships consisted not only of wood. Between woods, Roman ships were soaked with waterproof stick substance, which can easily pitch fire in a matter of seconds. This would lead to a small fire and very quickly spread to the wood.
Third, the reading avers Greek's mirror was impractical, it had the same efficiency as a flaming arrows at the same distance. The lecture opposes this point by saying that Romans were familiar with arrows but not with mirrors. They could easily see flaming arrows and reacted. But with the mirror the things were different. The warriors saw only the mirror and suddenly saw the fire. According to the professor mirror was surprising and, a result, more effective than usual arrows.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 62, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...at Greek of Syracuse never really built a 'burning mirror', that focuse...
^
Line 3, column 222, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...futes this point by stating that Greeks didnt have to make a parabolic shape to achie...
^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e and very quickly spread to the wood. Third, the reading avers Greeks mirror w...
^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...lt, more effective than usual arrows.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, really, second, so, then, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1487.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 288.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16319444444 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43930716089 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548611111111 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 440.1 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => 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: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.6960772207 49.2860985944 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.4705882353 110.228320801 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.9411764706 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.29411764706 7.06452816374 47% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.450729982515 0.272083759551 166% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.130875422796 0.0996497079465 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0882234924488 0.0662205650399 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.253349586684 0.162205337803 156% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0364629818403 0.0443174109184 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.35 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.