The reading states that the story of the Greek used a burning mirror to defend themselves against the Roman navy is a legend and provides three reasons of support. However, the lecturer explains that the claim of reading is unconvincing and refutes each of the reading reasons.
First of all, the article mentions that the Greeks did not have the advancement of technology to make a large sheet of copper an effective weapon as a mirror. However, the lecture counters this point by explaining that the Greeks did not have to use a huge sheet of copper to built a mirror. She says that they might make a dozen small mirrors that could do the same effective purpose.
Secondly, the article mentions that it would take about ten moments to set the wood of ships on fire. That could be an unpractical method to use. However, the lecturer refutes this argument. She says that there was another substance on the ships that could catch fire through seconds. The fire would spread to the wood consequently.
Thirdly, the author of the reading asserts that the Greeks did not need to create a new weapon. they could use flaming arrows, which they could light the fire up. However, the professor posits this point by pointing out that these narrows were familiar to the Romans and could predict the attack. On the other hand, the mirror was unfamiliar and would magically set the fire up. This manner would be more effective and successful.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 96, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: They
...ks did not need to create a new weapon. they could use flaming arrows, which they co...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, however, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1184.0 1373.03311258 86% => OK
No of words: 250.0 270.72406181 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.736 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.97635364384 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.35564343652 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 128.0 145.348785872 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.512 0.540411800872 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 352.8 419.366225166 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => 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: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.5974092395 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 78.9333333333 110.228320801 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.6666666667 21.698381199 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.6 7.06452816374 93% => 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 : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.336209210073 0.272083759551 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.108806650952 0.0996497079465 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0792865469148 0.0662205650399 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.193799121893 0.162205337803 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0537323552515 0.0443174109184 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.2 13.3589403974 69% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 72.16 53.8541721854 134% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 11.0289183223 65% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.92 12.2367328918 81% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.59 8.42419426049 90% => OK
difficult_words: 50.0 63.6247240618 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.