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 part and the lecture both discuss a weapon that Roman Empire used to set a fire. In the reading passage, the author mentions that the story of 'burning mirror' is a myth and could not exist for three main reasons. In the listening part, however, the speaker challenges what the author states and rebuts the reasons, inconvincing enough.
To begin with, as mentioned in the article, the author points out that they were not technologically advanced adequetaly to chieve this instrumente. In the listening part, nevertheless, the professor refutes the reasons asserting that they utlizied polish copper and with new metal and small peace of mirrores , they could make it.
Secondly, the author sets forth that should they want to set a fire on ships, they should stable the ship for minutes and it did not posssible on that time. Nonetheless, the speaker, flatly contradicts the idea and contends that they used to set wood and it took ten miniutes to lit, in contracts they used another material so-called pich to cash fire insted of woods and it could set on fire on mirrior by a second and it was quieqly enough to be on ships.
Finally, the author claims that it was not a important weapons on that time and thety use arrows and it was much more capable than this. In contrast, the professor is of the opinion that their enemies know arrows and they use the morror for surprising them and it was much effective that arrows, because the mirrore just took thier attention and they could use arrows bether on that conspets.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 310, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...th new metal and small peace of mirrores , they could make it. Secondly, the ...
^^
Line 13, column 44, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...ally, the author claims that it was not a important weapons on that time and thet...
^
Line 13, column 56, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'weapon'?
Suggestion: weapon
...thor claims that it was not a important weapons on that time and thety use arrows and i...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1279.0 1373.03311258 93% => OK
No of words: 268.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.7723880597 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04607285448 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44931483988 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 145.348785872 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.55223880597 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 379.8 419.366225166 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => 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: 29.0 21.2450331126 137% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 63.3192966901 49.2860985944 128% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.111111111 110.228320801 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.7777777778 21.698381199 137% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.8888888889 7.06452816374 154% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.20313702705 0.272083759551 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0885772497824 0.0996497079465 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.036798642886 0.0662205650399 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121757754786 0.162205337803 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0188010166069 0.0443174109184 42% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 13.3589403974 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.96 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.2 11.0289183223 111% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.98 12.2367328918 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.498013245 130% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.