TPO 30- A little over 2200 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 author believes that arguments about reality of existence of huge mirrors invented by greeks, which have an armorial fonction and used to burn the romans ships in wars are unconvincing. Supporting his oppinion, he provides three reasons. The lecturer, however, rejects the arguments as follows.
To begin with, the athore of the reading passage states that the ancient greeks were not enough advanced in technologies to creat such progressed weapon. this, however is rebutted by the professor arguing that the big mirror was not necesserily made from a single tape of copper; the new archeological discoveries demonstrates that these type of mirrors were manufactured from several peice of copper in parabellel shape which sticked together. this point is clearly in direct contradiction to what reading passage mentioned about impossibility of inventing such instrument in ancient Greec.
In addition, unlike the writer who mentions that it takes at least ten minutes that ships catch fire, the lecturer is of the opinion that those are other materials than wood which were the greeks goal to fire. To be specific, greeks set fire on sticky materials which burned in just some secondes. this is also in sharp contrast with the reading's reasoning reagarding the prolonged time of weapon functioning.
Finally, while the writer asserts that having flaming arrows, greeks did not need to invent new weapon for burning the Roman's ships, the lecturer refutes this claim and points out that the romans can easily notice the flaming arrows, thus they can scape. however, with this new invention, The Roman's ships would be set on fire without any signal which could be noticable. Therefore, that mirrors was concider a more effective weapon for them. Again, this is another blew to the entegrity of the arguments put forth by the author of the reading passage.
For these reasons, the lecturer dismisses the author's arguments as unconvincing.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 155, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...logies to creat such progressed weapon. this, however is rebutted by the professor a...
^^^^
Line 3, column 446, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...arabellel shape which sticked together. this point is clearly in direct contradictio...
^^^^
Line 5, column 190, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'greeks'' or 'Greek's'?
Suggestion: greeks'; Greek's
...ther materials than wood which were the greeks goal to fire. To be specific, greeks se...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 299, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...als which burned in just some secondes. this is also in sharp contrast with the read...
^^^^
Line 7, column 256, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: However
...he flaming arrows, thus they can scape. however, with this new invention, The Romans sh...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 275, Rule ID: NEW_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'invention'.
Suggestion: invention
...thus they can scape. however, with this new invention, The Romans ships would be set on fire ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, second, so, therefore, thus, while, at least, in addition, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1635.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 312.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24038461538 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20279927342 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64107037241 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 145.348785872 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.596153846154 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 495.9 419.366225166 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.4234641031 49.2860985944 145% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.785714286 110.228320801 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2857142857 21.698381199 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.5 7.06452816374 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.363339484823 0.272083759551 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.105622751359 0.0996497079465 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0748478303343 0.0662205650399 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167504909388 0.162205337803 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0846891242603 0.0443174109184 191% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.3589403974 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.41 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => 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.