Both the lecture and the reading passage are about the burning mirror. The author of the reading passage feels that the Greek port city of Syracuse were not able to develop a weapon, a burning mirror and used during wartime. However, the lecturers cast doubts with the opinion of the reading passage and assert that they are able to make weapons and used during the wartime.
First of all, the author of the reading passage contends that ancient Greek was not in a higher rank in technology to make such a weapon. The article mentions that a mirror capable of focusing the sunlight should be wide enough and parabolic in shape. However, the lecturer challenges these specific pieces of evidence. He says that the small pieces of copper assembled together to develop a copper of wider plate. Additionally, he says that after assembling into a single shape, it looks like a parabola.
Secondly, the writer argues that it will take long enough time to set fire on ships. In the article, it is mentioned that about 10 minutes of time is required to set fire on a wooden ship about 30 meters away from the burning devices. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning they used other materials so that they can set a fire within a second.
Finally, the writer claims that the Greeks of Syracuse already used a flaming arrow to set fire so they didn't use any burning mirror as they are useless. The speaker contradicts this point by mentioning a burning mirror is a very useful weapon and can set a fire within a short period of time.
In conclusion, the speaker challenges the claims presented in the reading passage and suggests that Greek Syracuse were responsible for developing a burning mirror.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 14, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... used during the wartime. First of all, the author of the reading passage conten...
^^
Line 2, column 233, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: parabolic
... the sunlight should be wide enough and parabolic in shape. However, the lecturer challenges these...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 105, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...sed a flaming arrow to set fire so they didnt use any burning mirror as they are usel...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 278, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...eapon and can set a fire within a short period of time. In conclusion, the speaker challenges...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, look, second, secondly, so, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => 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: 1407.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 296.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.75337837838 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14784890444 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43623717077 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493243243243 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 451.8 419.366225166 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.4166120175 49.2860985944 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.5 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1428571429 21.698381199 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.35714285714 7.06452816374 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.340758887245 0.272083759551 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.122047372098 0.0996497079465 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0683739136285 0.0662205650399 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.18953769876 0.162205337803 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0394103428313 0.0443174109184 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 13.3589403974 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.27 12.2367328918 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.83 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.