Both the reading and the lecture are about kind of relic weapon which is a burning mirror. The writer states that Greek did not use the burning mirror for defending from Roman army and gives three reasons of support. However, the professor explains that the author's claim is unconvincing and refutes each of the author's reasons in the passage.
First, the article states that Greek people did not have a sufficient technology for building the burning mirror. On the other hand the professor refutes this idea by stating one experiment. He states an expriment the small pieces can be used for building this weapon. What's more, Greek mathematicans now that what parabola is. So these pieces easilty can be put into the specific geometric shape which is parabola.
Second, the passage claims that destroying ships with a fire take a long time with burning mirror and gives an experiment for prove. The professor refutes this point. He states the object in the experiment is wooden. However, the Roman ships are not just made by wood. He states one matter which name is pitch. This sticky matter would ships on fire in a second.
Third, the writer claims that Greeks do not have a good reason for building this weapon. The already have flaming arrows. Contrary to this claim, the professor argues that Roman soldiers are be awere of flaming arrows. However, Romanians did not see burning mirror before the war so Roman soldiers are suprised when greeks used burning mirror. That explains, flaming arrows are more effective than flaming arrows.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 270, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: What's
...s can be used for building this weapon. Whats more, Greek mathematicans now that what...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 337, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'ship'
Suggestion: ship
...name is pitch. This sticky matter would ships on fire in a second. Third, the writ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 192, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...rofessor argues that Roman soldiers are be awere of flaming arrows. However, Roman...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, second, so, third, kind of, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 18.0 30.3222958057 59% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1289.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 260.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95769230769 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01553427287 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.29125879462 2.5805825403 89% => OK
Unique words: 133.0 145.348785872 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.511538461538 0.540411800872 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 389.7 419.366225166 93% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.1556980902 49.2860985944 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 67.8421052632 110.228320801 62% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.6842105263 21.698381199 63% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.42105263158 7.06452816374 48% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.388471883031 0.272083759551 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.116563415583 0.0996497079465 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.094463705741 0.0662205650399 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.238581862923 0.162205337803 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0430109221581 0.0443174109184 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.8 13.3589403974 66% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 66.74 53.8541721854 124% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 11.0289183223 65% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.9 12.2367328918 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.32 8.42419426049 87% => OK
difficult_words: 50.0 63.6247240618 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.2 10.498013245 69% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.