Reading and lecture discusses about whether the theory of an inguenius weapon called burning mirror used by Greek to cause fire on Roman ship 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 determine 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 catch fire by burning mirror. 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 a waterproof material called pinch glued on the surface of wooden ship. In addition, she brings out the fact that all these procedures can happen when ship is moving.
Thirdly, reading states there was no valid reason for Greeks to make burning mirror, because they were expert in shooting 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 weapons. Furthermore, professor adds that burning mirror can not be seen by by Roman armies, thus burning mirror can set ship on fire without even noticing by anyone. Hence, professor successfully challenged statements made in reading.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 364, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: by
...dds that burning mirror can not be seen by by Roman armies, thus burning mirror can s...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, hence, however, second, so, third, thirdly, thus, while, in addition, in contrast
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 : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 44.0 30.3222958057 145% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1598.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 314.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08917197452 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20951839842 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.35887314764 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.563694267516 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 471.6 419.366225166 112% => 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: 1.0 8.23620309051 12% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.3935215889 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.875 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.625 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06452816374 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => 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: 0.373272261869 0.272083759551 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.119269841836 0.0996497079465 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0971684819122 0.0662205650399 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.227455819006 0.162205337803 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.035576087778 0.0443174109184 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.8 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.