In view of the reading, the author claims that in 2200 years ago, there is a defension of Greeks against Roman navy attack with using the new weapon called "burning mirror" by pointing out 3 reasons of support. Finding the statements arguable, the lecturer casts doubt on the claims made by article and presents some evidence in contrary.
At first, the author argues that the Greeks were not enough advanced in this field in order to create such extraordinary weapon since they were need to provide the vast meters of mirror to make very accurate parabolic curvature. Conversely the lecturer brings up the idea that this is possible to create such parabolic curvature by using the many small size of the mirror.
In addtion, the reading passage holds the view that there were needed a long time to set the fire on the ships and it needs to have the motionless object in order to focus the light of sun on that. In view of the author, this was impossible due to moving the ships. On the other hands the lecturer disputes this by clarifing the fact that it would be possible if they consider all materials which the ships create by. For example, there is a substance called pitch beside the wood and it can get fire really soon. So, it is possible to start fire with pitch and continue by wood material.
Finally, the author asserts lack of exististance of "burning mirror" beside the flaming arrows as the last point for supporting the myth of ingenious weapon. The lecturer, though, dismisses it by saying the fact that the burning mirror could have effect by more distance because of the mirror. So, they would not to be the same and the burning mirror could have more surprising effect in order to stand in front of the enemy.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 230, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Conversely,
...make very accurate parabolic curvature. Conversely the lecturer brings up the idea that th...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 227, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...gh, dismisses it by saying the fact that the burning mirror could have effect by ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, finally, first, if, really, so, for example, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 30.3222958057 175% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1453.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 308.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 4.71753246753 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45205974253 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.529220779221 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 443.7 419.366225166 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.9722145019 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.083333333 110.228320801 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6666666667 21.698381199 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.16666666667 7.06452816374 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.37559102007 0.272083759551 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.119014997696 0.0996497079465 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0716980278001 0.0662205650399 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.199878009662 0.162205337803 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0562776355215 0.0443174109184 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.3589403974 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 63.02 53.8541721854 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.39 12.2367328918 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.