Both the passage and the lecture discuss the existence of "the burning mirror", Which was an ingenious weapon build by the Greeks that consisted in a reflective surface curved to focus the sun's rays on to enemy ships and set them on fire. The passage Suggest that the invention of such a weapon was impossible for greeks. On the other hand, The lecturer posits that the Greeks were indeed capable of constructing it. Moreover, the lecturer cast doubt on the claims made by the reading passage.
First, the passage states that ancient Greeks did not have the technology to build the device. It is pointed out that in order to be able to set a ship on fire, the mirror would have to be several meters wide and present a precise curvature and greeks simply were not able of manufacturing a device with that characteristics. Nonetheless, the lecturer points out that instead of one big mirror the Greeks could build several small mirrors in the same space. Additionally, she points out that mathematicians at the time knew the properties of the parabola and could arrange a mirror to meet that specification.
Second, the Text argues that the weapon would be impractical because it would take too long for the wood in a ship to catch on fire and even more so, it would have to be static. The lecturer challenges this point. She explains that it would take very long to lit the wood on fire, but the weapon was meant to ignite the pitch, which was a substance that was added to the wood in order o make it water-proof and was very flammable, making the burning mirror very practical in reality.
Finally, the Author of the text says that the Greeks did not need such a weapon. They explain that flaming arrows fulfilled the same purpose and worked at the same range, so the burning mirror presented no improvement for warfare. The lecturer rebuts this argument. She says that the passage is overlooking the factor of surprise. She elaborates on this by explaining that the greek's enemies expected flaming arrows, and therefore, were ready to extinguish their flames. On the other hand, the flaming mirror would take them by surprise, thus being more effective.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 263, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'suggests'.
Suggestion: Suggests
...ships and set them on fire. The passage Suggest that the invention of such a weapon was...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, look, moreover, nonetheless, second, so, therefore, thus, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 46.0 30.3222958057 152% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1805.0 1373.03311258 131% => OK
No of words: 376.0 270.72406181 139% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.80053191489 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40348946061 4.04702891845 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60420963447 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 145.348785872 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.478723404255 0.540411800872 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 553.5 419.366225166 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.7600511684 49.2860985944 140% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.176470588 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1176470588 21.698381199 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.88235294118 7.06452816374 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
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: 0.472559672049 0.272083759551 174% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126313943886 0.0996497079465 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0987742937319 0.0662205650399 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.270179100557 0.162205337803 167% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0469499029828 0.0443174109184 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.56 12.2367328918 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.0 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.