burning mirror
The assignment argues that Greeks never built the burning mirror and provides three reasons of support. However, the lecturer cast doubt on this claim by saying the ideas are unconvincing and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the article states that Greeks were not technologically advanced enough to make such a decive. On the contrary, the lecturer opposes this idea by mentioning that the mirror shouldn't one single sheet. The mirror could have been built by dozens of smaller polished copper, so they could be combined to form a parabolic curve. Thus, they didn't have to manufacture a large sheet with specific factors.
Second, the reading claims that th burning mirror would have taken a long time to set the ships on fire. In contrast, the lecturer refutes this reason by stating that the reading assumes wood to set on fire in 10 minutes but Roman ships were not of wood completely. They were also sealed with a sticky waterproof material that could been set on fires quickley in secends. This emerging fire spread easily to woods as well as the ship was moving. Thus, the mirror was effective enough to set the ship on fire.
Last, but not least, the article pushes forth this idea that the burning mirror is not an improvment on a weapon Greeks already had which is flaming arrow. On the other hand, the lecturer contadicts this reason by explaining that as Romans were able to see where burning arrows were hitted, they could handle the fire situation better but they couldn't see the burning radiations coming from the mirror. Because radiations were not observable, the fire made them surprise and they barely could handle the situation. Therefore, the burning mirror is much more effective that burning arrows.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-02-20 | can111 | 60 | view |
| 2023-02-07 | Celia02200059 | 3 | view |
| 2022-12-27 | nikki07hung | 65 | view |
| 2022-12-27 | nikki07hung | 60 | view |
| 2022-10-20 | pativ7 | 90 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The assignment argues that Greeks never ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...utes each of the authors reasons. First, the article states that Greeks we...
^^^^
Line 5, column 185, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: shouldn't
...this idea by mentioning that the mirror shouldnt one single sheet. The mirror could have...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 347, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...d to form a parabolic curve. Thus, they didnt have to manufacture a large sheet with ...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...arge sheet with specific factors. Second, the reading claims that th burni...
^^^^
Line 9, column 338, Rule ID: PRP_PAST_PART[2]
Message: Did you mean 'have been' or 'be'?
Suggestion: have been; be
...a sticky waterproof material that could been set on fires quickley in secends. This ...
^^^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e enough to set the ship on fire. Last, but not least, the article pushes ...
^^^^
Line 13, column 349, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...ndle the fire situation better but they couldnt see the burning radiations coming from ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, second, so, therefore, thus, well, in contrast, as well as, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1456.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 294.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95238095238 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14082457966 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.35787651411 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.534013605442 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 432.0 419.366225166 103% => 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: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.5164638707 49.2860985944 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.0666666667 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.33333333333 7.06452816374 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 4.19205298013 191% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.336756068679 0.272083759551 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.134519731467 0.0996497079465 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.159514134242 0.0662205650399 241% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.2125465532 0.162205337803 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.11115654116 0.0443174109184 251% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.43 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.96 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 65.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.5 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.