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 really built such a device.
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, she says that the reasons are unconvincing for her.
To begin with, as mentioned in the article, the author points out that they were not advanced technology adequately to achieve this instrument. In the listening part, nevertheless, the professor refutes the reasons asserting that they utilized single polish copper and with new metal and with small pieces of mirror, 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 possible on that time. Nonetheless, the speaker flatly contradicts the idea and contends that they used to set woody ships and it took ten minutes to lit, in contracts they used another material so-called pitch to cash fire instead of wood and it could set on fire on mirror by a second and it was quickly enough to be on ships.
Finally, the author claims that it was not an important weapon on that time and they use arrows and it was much more capable than this. In contrast, the professor is of the opinion that their enemies might know arrows and they use the mirror for surprising them and it was much effective that arrows, because the mirror just took their attention and they could use arrows better on that consept.
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 : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 22.412803532 170% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1312.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 279.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.70250896057 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08696624509 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.3050803141 2.5805825403 89% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.523297491039 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 388.8 419.366225166 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => 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: 31.0 21.2450331126 146% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 63.8170610727 49.2860985944 129% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.777777778 110.228320801 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.0 21.698381199 143% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.8888888889 7.06452816374 154% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => 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: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.237143057663 0.272083759551 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.104283323555 0.0996497079465 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0407323094131 0.0662205650399 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143394800832 0.162205337803 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0281420741876 0.0443174109184 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 13.3589403974 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.93 53.8541721854 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.57 12.2367328918 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 51.0 63.6247240618 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 10.498013245 137% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.