The passage and lecture are arguing over the question wether Greek used a mirror as a weapon for burning the roman ships. The passage lists out some reasons that burning mirrors were not a practical and possible weapon. On the contrary, the lecturer chalenges these reasons and she believes that Greek used burning mirors for defending themselves.
Firstly, based on the passage, the Greek were not capable to build such a large and precise parabolic curvature from technological point of view. In contrast, the lecturer mentions that the Greeks built some small pieces and assemble these pieces for building such a precis parabolic curvature object.
Secondly, the passage author cliams that experiment's results shows that the Reman ships would be unmoving, in this respect, it lasts ten minutes that buning mirror can bur wooden pieces of the ships. However, the lecturer refuses this point and she asserts that the all pieces of the roman ship were not made from wood. In better words, there were some pieces which were called ptich and the pithc was made from flamable and waterproof material. Therefore, Greek were able to burn the roman ship, only with focusing sun ray on pitch for some seconds.
Third, the passage states that Greek were able use flaming arrows instead of the burning mirrors. The lecturer, however, rebuts this arguement and she mentions that Roman soldiers were familiar with flamable arrows and they could to defend themselves while they had no idea about the burning mirror. They just saw big mirrors, after that, their ships would be burned. Therefore, they were not defend themselves and they thought it is a migic. As a result, the burning mirrors were more efficient than flamable arrows.
All in all, the passage lists three reasons to refuse the presence of the burning mirrors, but the lecturer chalenges these rreasons to prove the existence of the burning mirrors.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 55, Rule ID: ASK_WETHER[1]
Message: Did you mean 'whether'?
Suggestion: whether
...d lecture are arguing over the question wether Greek used a mirror as a weapon for bur...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 394, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'defended'.
Suggestion: defended
...uld be burned. Therefore, they were not defend themselves and they thought it is a mig...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, while, in contrast, as a result, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1600.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 315.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07936507937 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.27250149363 2.5805825403 88% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.51746031746 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 476.1 419.366225166 114% => 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: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.7081926405 49.2860985944 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.666666667 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 21.698381199 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.86666666667 7.06452816374 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => 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: 0.340933161131 0.272083759551 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126062705035 0.0996497079465 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0606834992886 0.0662205650399 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.184342695216 0.162205337803 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0622890103081 0.0443174109184 141% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
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: 12.18 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.19 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21 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.