Reading and lecture discusses about whether the theory of a weapon called burning mirror fire is true or false.
Reading suggests that theory was myth, while professor thinks that explanation in reading is not cogent.
First, reading points out that ancient Greeks were not very intelligent to figure out
the method to focus sunlight on ship to cause fire. Furthermore, it also adds that 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 might not be created from single sheet, but Greeks might have arranged dozens of small sheets to form parabolic shape to reflect sunlight. In addition, she also points out that Greeks were clever to perform fine task for creating huge copper sheet.
Second, reading argues that Roman ship must be un moving for ten minutes in order to spread fire. Furthermore, it states that this burning weapon might take another thirty minutes to burn wood, so use of this weapon is impractical. However, professor challenges this point. She thinks that burning mirror can create fire in ship quickly due to waterproof 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 adds that burning mirror can not be seen by human, thus burning mirror can set on fire without even noticing. Hence, professor successfully challenged statements made in reading.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, 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 on ship to ...
^^^
Line 8, 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: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1560.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 302.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16556291391 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1687104957 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.36150991758 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 145.348785872 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.572847682119 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 455.4 419.366225166 109% => 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: 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: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.1210495318 49.2860985944 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.7647058824 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7647058824 21.698381199 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.35294117647 7.06452816374 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.09492273731 147% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => 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: 0.354429474995 0.272083759551 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110074000093 0.0996497079465 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0782249723738 0.0662205650399 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.162439845202 0.162205337803 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0873308963994 0.0443174109184 197% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.41 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.67 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.