TPO
The reading claims that burning Raman ships by burning mirror was an unreal story. However, the lecturer finds all the idea questionable and presents some evidence to refute them all.
The author argues that ancient Greeks didn’t enough technical knowledge for fabricating these mirrors. Conversely, the lecturer brings the idea that by using the mathematical information they would easily be able to create parabolic shape mirror by putting some sheet of copper together.
Furthermore, the reading passage holds the view that the burning ships by mirror take a long time so it wouldn’t be useful. On the contrary, the professor underlines the fact that burning wood takes 10 minutes but Raman’s ships were built by other material such as pitch as well. Burning pitch takes only one second and it could spread fire to the whole of a ship even when it moves.
Finally, the reading asserts that Greeks didn’t need such weapon in that time. In contrast, the speaker dismisses this issue due to the fact that flaming arrows were predictable for ancient Roman and they could defend themselves, but burning mirror wasn’t detectable for them so it could be an effective and surprising weapon for Greeks.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, finally, furthermore, however, second, so, well, in contrast, such as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 15.0 30.3222958057 49% => More preposition wanted.
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: 1029.0 1373.03311258 75% => OK
No of words: 198.0 270.72406181 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19696969697 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.75116612262 4.04702891845 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63824481048 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 122.0 145.348785872 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.616161616162 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 306.0 419.366225166 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
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: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.7795484447 49.2860985944 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.333333333 110.228320801 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 21.698381199 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.4444444444 7.06452816374 162% => 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 : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => 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: 14.1 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 50.0 63.6247240618 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.