Reading and lecture discusses about whether the theory of weapon burning mirror fire is true or false.
Reading suggests that theory was myth, while professor thinks that reasons set forth in reading are
unconvincing.
First, reading points out that ancient Greeks were not very intelligent to figure out
the method to focus sunlight and cause fire. Furthermore, large copper sheets were not available at that time to create this weapon. The professor casts doubt on statement made in lecture. She says that large copper sheet was not created from single sheet, but they might have arranged dozens of small sheets to form parabolic shape. In addition, she also points out that Greeks were clever to perform that fine task.
Second, reading argues that in order to cause fire by burning mirror, Roman ship must be static. Furthermore, it states that this burning weapon use is impractical as this procedure takes time. However, professor challenges this point. She thinks that burning mirror can create fire in ship quickly due to water proof material called pinch sprayed on the wooden ship. In addition, she brings fact all these procedures can happen with moving ship. As a result, burning mirror was served as efficient weapon.
Thirdly, reading states there was no valid reason for Greeks to make burning mirror, because they were expert in shooing burning arrow to destroy enemies from far distance. In contrast, professor thinks that attacking soldiers can easily spot these burning arrows, so they are not logical in defense. Furthermore, professor addsthat burning mirror can not be seen by human, thus burning mirror can set on fire withouteven noticing. Hence, professor successfully challenged statements made in reading.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 86, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... were not very intelligent to figure out the method to focus sunlight and cause f...
^^^
Line 8, column 307, Rule ID: EN_COMPOUNDS
Message: This word is normally spelled as one.
Suggestion: waterproof
... can create fire in ship quickly due to water proof material called pinch sprayed on the wo...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...mirror was served as efficient weapon. Thirdly, reading states there was no val...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, hence, however, second, so, third, thirdly, thus, while, in addition, in contrast, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1469.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 278.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28417266187 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.39124234584 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 145.348785872 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.589928057554 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 428.4 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.23620309051 24% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less 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: 34.3902899308 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.4117647059 110.228320801 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.3529411765 21.698381199 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.35294117647 7.06452816374 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.09492273731 147% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 4.45695364238 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.36014818003 0.272083759551 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11382618579 0.0996497079465 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0831968070927 0.0662205650399 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168573346889 0.162205337803 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0834433422822 0.0443174109184 188% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.3589403974 87% => 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: 13.05 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 68.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.5 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.