The reading article talks about an ancient weapon called "burning mirror- a polished and curved sheet of Copper" which was considered as a myth, used in Greek and Roman war. The lecture refutes the claims made in the reading passage with enough supporting arguments.
First the reading proposes that, the Greeks did not have advanced technology to build wide, precise, parabolic mirrors using large sheet of Copper. However, the lecture argues that, this claim is unconvincing and there is no need of large single sheet, dozens of small sheets can be used to build the mirror. Also, the Greek mathematicians knew the formula to create the parabolic mirror.
In addition, the reading passage uses an experiment to claim that, it will take 10 minutes to set object on fire a ship from 30 meter distance and the target has to be still, makes the weapon impractical and ineffective. The lecture refuses this theory and states that, wooden object will need 10 minutes to catch fire, but a material called Pitch used to build ships can catch fire in seconds, makes the weapon effective.
Lastly, the reading makes the argument that, flaming arrows would have been a better choice than mirrors and can be shot from same distance as the mirror with similar effectiveness. The lecture refutes this claim and points out that, Roman soldiers were familiar with flaming arrows and would have expected its use. But Burning mirror was a surprise element and did not expect burning rays. Moreover, the professor adds, the fire at unexpected places made this weapon effective.
In conclusion, the lecture dismisses all the claims made by the reading article and states that those claims are highly unconvincing.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, lastly, moreover, second, so, still, as to, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1436.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 282.0 270.72406181 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09219858156 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09790868904 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49655464013 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.54609929078 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 434.7 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
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: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.7665038378 49.2860985944 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.666666667 110.228320801 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5 21.698381199 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.08333333333 7.06452816374 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.370675008004 0.272083759551 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.142094092143 0.0996497079465 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0766201149299 0.0662205650399 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.189415856709 0.162205337803 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.106418653997 0.0443174109184 240% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.3589403974 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.