Tpo30
Both the reading and lecture discuss whether the Greeks had used an ingenious weapon, burning mirror, to fire Roman's ships or not. While the author states that the story is a myth, the lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article and provides evidence supporting the burning mirror did exist in the history.
First of all, the author claims that during that time, technology was not advanced enough to make such large mirrors. He believes the mirror should have been several meters wide to focus the sunlight and set the ships on fire. The point is challenged by the lecture. She says that instead of a large sheet, they could install enormous single pieces and form a large mirror to set the Roman navy on fire.
The next point brought up is that it would take a long time to fire the moving ships by just a large mirror. However, the professor asserts that Greeks could take the advantages of the burning mirror to set other materials such as pitches to fire. And it would only take several seconds to burn the pitches and spread the fire to the wood materials of the ships.
Finally, the writer mentions that such a weapon does not seem necessary. Because Greeks already had flaming arrows, which has the same effective distance as the burning mirror. The lecture, on the other hand, claims that the Romans had been familiar with fire arrows and known well how to defend such an attack. She puts forth the idea that as fire arrows could be observed easily, Greeks had used mirrors to surprise their enemies.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 102, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...sed an ingenious weapon, burning mirror, to fire Romans ships or not. While the a...
^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rning mirror did exist in the history. First of all, the author claims that du...
^^^
Line 8, column 83, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...weapon does not seem necessary. Because Greeks already had flaming arrows, which...
^^
Line 8, column 212, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... mirror. The lecture, on the other hand, claims that the Romans had been familiar...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, second, so, well, while, such as, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => 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: 1262.0 1373.03311258 92% => OK
No of words: 270.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 4.67407407407 5.08290768461 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05360046442 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.09007058774 2.5805825403 81% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 145.348785872 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548148148148 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 377.1 419.366225166 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.4296045675 49.2860985944 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.0769230769 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7692307692 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.92307692308 7.06452816374 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => 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: 0.53253047775 0.272083759551 196% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.176793036461 0.0996497079465 177% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0886412199284 0.0662205650399 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.305233278315 0.162205337803 188% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0202076544337 0.0443174109184 46% => 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: 11.0 13.3589403974 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 68.1 53.8541721854 126% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.81 12.2367328918 80% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.79 8.42419426049 92% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 63.6247240618 85% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.