TPO-30 Integrated Writing
A little over 2,200 years ago, the Roman navy attacked the Greek port city of Syracuse. According to some ancient historians, the Greeks defended themselves with an ingenious weapon called a "burning mirror": a polished copper surface curved to focus the Sun's rays onto Roman ships, causing them to catch fire. However, we have several reasons to suspect that the story of the burning mirror is just a myth and the Greeks of Syracuse never rally built such a device.
First, the ancient Greeks were not technologically advanced enough to make such a device. A mirror that would focus sunlight with sufficient intensity to set ships on fire would have to be several meters wide. Moreover, the mirror would have to have a very precise parabolic curvature(a curvature derived from a geometric shape known as the parabola). The technology for manufacturing a large sheet of copper with such specifications did not exist in the ancient world.
Second, the burning mirror would have taken a long time to set the ships on fire. In an experiment conducted to determine whether a burning mirror was feasible, a device concentrating the Sun's rays on a wooden object 30 meters away took ten minutes to set the object on fire: and during that time, the object had to be unmoving. It is unlikely that Roman ships stayed perfectly still for that much time, Such a weapon would therefore have been very impractical and ineffective.
Third, the mirror does not seem like an improvement on a weapon that the Greeks already had: flaming arrows. Shooting at an enemy's ships with flaming arrows was the way of setting the the on fire. The burning mirror and flaming arrows would have been effective at about the same distance. So the Greeks had no reason to build a weapon like a mirror.
The reading and the listening are about burning mirror. The author of the reading provides three assumptions to prove that that mirror story is a myth because Greek did not have such technology to build this and apply to burn Roman ships. However, the professor on the lecture rebuts those rationals and claims that all are unconvincing.
First of all, the reading posits that as Greeks had not improved technologically to build such mirror which must be wide and precise parabolic curvature, such device did not exist. The professor, conversely, states that Greeks had sufficient knowledge to build small mirror with copper and connect them to build perfect wider parabolic mirror.
Secondly, the writer claims that the using of mirror for burning ships was not feasible and efficient method since it took long time to start firing. He also says that such long time the ship needed to keep static which was not a practical event.The lecturer refutes this point by informing that there were many other mater rather than wood on the body for different purpose like to keep the boat waterproof, and these are easy to fire. So, that mirror did not need more time focusing for burning the ship.
Thirdly, the reading suggests that since Greeks had well developed flaming arrows, they must use arrows instead of using such ineffective mirror. On the other hand, the professor avers that there were more advantages to use such mirror than flaming arrows. He further mentions that opponent group was unaware of mirror destructiveness, and it enabled Greeks to use this and burn the ships.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 247, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
... static which was not a practical event.The lecturer refutes this point by informin...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, well, first of all, 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: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 5.01324503311 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1326.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 265.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00377358491 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03470204552 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42046572489 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.554716981132 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 398.7 419.366225166 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.447367995 49.2860985944 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.545454545 110.228320801 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0909090909 21.698381199 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.7272727273 7.06452816374 152% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.403548146388 0.272083759551 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.168625469855 0.0996497079465 169% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0733321876213 0.0662205650399 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.243501335803 0.162205337803 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0272077068331 0.0443174109184 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.