TPO-30 - Integrated Writing Task A little over 2,200 years ago, the Roman navy attacked the Greek port city of Syracuse. According to some ancient historians, the Greeks defended themselves with an ingenious weapon called a "burning mirror": a polished co
Both the article and lecture discuss a type of weapon, named burning mirror which ancient Greek made use of it in defending themselves from Roman ships. The reading passage declares that it is unlikely that Greek used burning mirror for three reasons, however, the lecturer rejects the points made in the passage.
Firstly, the lecturer states that Greek did not need to use single sheet of copper and instead they can build such a burning mirror with several small and polished coppers in order to create parabolic curvature. It is mentioned in the lecture that Greek mathematicians knew about the properties of parabolic shape and arranged to build burning mirror. Therefore, it is probable that Greek used burning mirror weapon in battles. On the contrary, the author believes that ancient Greek were not able to manufacture such a technologically advanced device.
Secondly, the professor claims that if ship was made from wood, it took 10 minute to catch fire on ship. Nonetheless, Roman also used another materials in their ship for the sake of making their ships water proof, which was called pitch. The professor continues by saying that pitch was a sticky substance that could be burnt rapidly in a few seconds. If ancient Greek utilized burning mirror, the fire spread quickly enough in the ship of enemy even when they were moving. Hence, the burning mirror was an effective weapon. By contrast, the writer points out that because the burning mirror would have lasted a long period of time to set fire on ship, it was not an effective weapon.
Finally, although the author of passage argues that burning mirror was as effective as flaming arrows and had not any improvement over flaming arrows, the speaker challenges this point by stating that Roman soldiers were familiar with flaming arrows and they were ready to protect themselves from flaming arrows. It is argued in the lecture that mirror only can be seen and Romans soldiers were not observed places, where the mirror set ship on fire. So, Roman soldiers got surprised when they saw sudden fire in unobserved places at the ship. Therefore, using burning mirror was much more effective than flaming arrows.
- TPO-22 - Independent Writing Task Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Teachers should not make their social or political views known to students in the classroom.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 76
- TPO-33 - Independent Writing Task: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?When teachers assign projects on which students must work together, the students learn much more effectively than when they are asked to work alone on projects. Use s 76
- Some people enjoy change and they look forward to new experiences. Others like their lives to stay the same, and they don’t change their usual habits. Compare these two approaches to life. Which approach do you prefer? Why? 76
- Some people say that the Internet provides people with a lot of valuable information. Others think access to so much information creates problems. Which do you agree with? 73
- TPO-10 - Independent Writing Task Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Playing computer games is a waste of time. Children should not be allowed to play them.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 88
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 201, Rule ID: EN_COMPOUNDS
Message: This word is normally spelled as one.
Suggestion: waterproof
...ship for the sake of making their ships water proof, which was called pitch. The professor ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 617, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...burning mirror would have lasted a long period of time to set fire on ship, it was not an effe...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 621, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...uch more effective than flaming arrows.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => 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: 1817.0 1373.03311258 132% => OK
No of words: 364.0 270.72406181 134% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99175824176 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36792674256 4.04702891845 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.3919895981 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 145.348785872 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.516483516484 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 555.3 419.366225166 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.4455830466 49.2860985944 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.5625 110.228320801 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.75 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06452816374 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.530518305375 0.272083759551 195% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.189153583013 0.0996497079465 190% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0813518392729 0.0662205650399 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.313311088971 0.162205337803 193% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0597147623935 0.0443174109184 135% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.96 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.