tpo30-integrated writing
Both the reading and listening parts present two opposite perspectives about the practicality of the burning mirror for setting fire on the Roman ships. While the text lists some evidence to illustrate the impossibility of this event, the lecturer in the listening section considered those pieces of evidence as unconvincing.
First of all, the passage posits that the Greek was not technologically advanced to make a large and parabolic shaped mirror; however, the professor refutes this assertion. As she explains, the mirror was not a signal giant sheet of mirror, it was a combination of small pieces. Furthermore, the Greek had this knowledge to produce a parabola form in the copper. So, the big sheet of burning mirror was the assembly of small and parabola shaped coppers which could set the fire on.
Second, meanwhile, the reading section referred to a conducted research which shows the required duration for setting the wood on fire by the mirror is so long as ten minutes to reject the possibility of burning the Roman ship by the mirror; the professor discussed another material in the ship which burnt so quickly. As she discussed, the substance which was used for sealing woods and as the moisture insulation in the ship was the pitch that gets burned in a few seconds. Thus, the pitch was burned very quickly and separated in the ship as it was moving.
Finally, the article casts doubt on the feasibility of this event, since the Greek possessed the flaming arrows on that time which has the identical impact as the burning mirror; so, there was no requirement for that mirror. On the other hand, the lecturer denies this claim; according to her statements, since the Roman was familiar with the fire arrows, they were ready to defeat them. However, the burning mirror was a surprise which set the fire on in the surprising and uncontrollable way.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, furthermore, however, second, so, thus, while, first of all, 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: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1555.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 316.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92088607595 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21620550194 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67285569886 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 145.348785872 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.506329113924 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 478.8 419.366225166 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 21.2450331126 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 63.6384645216 49.2860985944 129% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.583333333 110.228320801 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.3333333333 21.698381199 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.83333333333 7.06452816374 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 4.33554083885 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.368536644967 0.272083759551 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.149488280986 0.0996497079465 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.06646730383 0.0662205650399 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.228199212222 0.162205337803 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.060826425827 0.0443174109184 137% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.87 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 63.6247240618 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.498013245 118% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.