The article states that about 2200 years ago Greek defended their city from Roman navy by using a weapon called "burning mirror". The reading claims that it was impractical and ineffective to use such a device. However, the lecturer challenges the statement made by the author by pointing several reasons.
First off all, the reading posits that Greek were not technologically advanced enough to make such precise parabolic curvature. The professor refutes this point by saying it is not necessary that one single sheet is used. Greek might have used multiple sheets. The mirror does not have to be several meters wide if several pieces are used together. Moreover, professor states that Greek mathematician had enough knowledge to do such calculations for making burning mirror using several mirrors.
Second, the writer posits that it would take almost ten minutes to catch a fire on Roman boat using burning mirror. The lecturer explains that the boat is made with pitch along with wood. He claims that it only takes few second to catch fire in a pitch. He also explains the boat does not have to be still to catch fire.
Finally, the author says that the Greek could have used flaming arrow instead of burning mirror. The lecturer explains that Roman soldier is already familiar with flaming arrow and they were prepared for that. On the other hand, burning mirror is a new idea and the Roman were surprised. He also adds that it was hard for the Roman navy to detect the rays of burning mirror so the could not stop the fire before starting.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 258, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... few second to catch fire in a pitch. He also explains the boat does not have to ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, still, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => 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: 1296.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 264.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 4.90909090909 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03089032464 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.40980549722 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 140.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.530303030303 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 399.6 419.366225166 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 28.6077322371 49.2860985944 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 81.0 110.228320801 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.5 21.698381199 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0625 7.06452816374 72% => 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 : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.425082697145 0.272083759551 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.137250918566 0.0996497079465 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0764645055461 0.0662205650399 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.251659072841 0.162205337803 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0517186714869 0.0443174109184 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.9 13.3589403974 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.9 12.2367328918 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.36 8.42419426049 87% => OK
difficult_words: 49.0 63.6247240618 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 68.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.5 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.