The reading and the lecture are both about The burning mirror weapon was created by the Ancient Greek to defend themselves against The Romans their enemy. The author provides three main ideas about the truth of this weapon. He says it is a myth is not real. On the other hand, the listening contradicts the points we made by the author.
Firstly, The reading passage claims that The Greek were not civilized enough to create such weapons. ON the hand the tutor defeats this point. He claims that this reason is unconvinced. He elaborates more by saying that the Greek Mathematicians were aware of the parabolic shapes. He says that the weapon made by many sheets of copper which directed to the ships of the Romans.
Secondly, The teacher of the reading states that Buring mirror weapon needs a long time to burn the ships. As he mentioned in the experiment was made. The result is an ineffective and impractical weapon at the end. On the hand, The professor in the listening challenged this point. He suggests that The Romans ships were made of pitch which is a waterproof material, the same time it easily catches fire.
Thirdly, The passage states the flaming arrows resemble the burning mirrors in the action. The tutor contends this points. He explains that The burning mirror can set the ship on fire and the soldiers can not notice that. He elaborates his point by saying the burning arrows can be easily seen by The Romans.\
To sum up, The reading and the listening are both about The smart burning mirror weapon made by The Greek. Both contradicts each other by mentiong three points.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 282, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ans were aware of the parabolic shapes. He says that the weapon made by many sheet...
^^
Line 5, column 108, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...on needs a long time to burn the ships. As he mentioned in the experiment was made...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1328.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 279.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.75985663082 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08696624509 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.35725695922 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 145.348785872 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.483870967742 0.540411800872 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 391.5 419.366225166 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.6929815334 49.2860985944 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 69.8947368421 110.228320801 63% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.6842105263 21.698381199 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.31578947368 7.06452816374 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.274831016251 0.272083759551 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0803107339589 0.0996497079465 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0779050563641 0.0662205650399 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.165044227124 0.162205337803 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0405652380581 0.0443174109184 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.3 13.3589403974 62% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 74.19 53.8541721854 138% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.4 11.0289183223 58% => Flesch kincaid grade is low.
coleman_liau_index: 9.74 12.2367328918 80% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.27 8.42419426049 86% => OK
difficult_words: 52.0 63.6247240618 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => 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.