Reading and lecture discusses whether the theory of an ingenious weapon named burning mirror used by Greek to cause fire on Roman ship to save themselves 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, large copper sheets were not invented at that time to create this weapon. The professor casts doubt on the 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 Mathematicians were cognizant clever to create a parabola shape out of copper sheets.
Second, reading argues that Roman ship must be steady for ten minutes in order to catch fire by burning mirror. However, professor challenges this point. She thinks that burning mirror can create fire in ship quickly due to sticky waterproof material called pitch glued on the surface of wooden ship. In addition, she says that Roman ship could have easily burnt even if ship was in motion, there was no requirement for ship to be static to spread fire.
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 Roman soldiers could easily spot these flaming arrows, as they were familiar with that type of attack, so they are not effective weapons. Furthermore, professor adds that burning mirrors are invisible, thus they can set ship on fire without even noticing by anyone. Hence, professor successfully challenged statements made in reading.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 516, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...so points out that Greeks Mathematicians were cognizant clever to create a parabo...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, 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 : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 30.3222958057 148% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1577.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 307.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13680781759 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.40728292638 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.57003257329 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 468.9 419.366225166 112% => 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: 1.0 8.23620309051 12% => 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: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.1398758562 49.2860985944 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.133333333 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4666666667 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.73333333333 7.06452816374 109% => 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: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.392348915954 0.272083759551 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.125832433582 0.0996497079465 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0933302270862 0.0662205650399 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.230452413537 0.162205337803 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0445262260127 0.0443174109184 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.