TPO 30
The reading and the lecture are both about the hypothesis of the weapon called " burning mirror". Whereas the author of the reading states that this weapon was a myth. The lecturer suggests that the burning mirror weapon was really built and the Greeks of Syracuse used that. The lecturer casts doubts on the main points made in the reading by providing three reasons.
First and foremost, according to the reading, in order to built that weapon they should have had an advance technology, but Greeks did not have that development yet. However, the lecturer disputes this point. He says that at that time people who build ships knew how to create parabolic shape by gathering small pieces of the mirrors. So, it was not necessary to create that shape only if you have had a large sheet of copper. Furthermore, he mentions that they would be able to build despite the technology.
The second argument the author gives is the experiment that was conducted shows that the ship could not burn fast as they predicted. Nevertheless, the lecturer refutes this argument. He argues that ships could not burn fast because at that time ships were made by different material not just wood. As a result, the experiment is not convincing.
Lastly, the reading claims that the mirror was not an improvement for the weapon because they had that already. In addition, flaming arrow was a common way to set the ships on fire. On the other hand, the lecturer believe that mirror play an important role to utilize the fire. He thinks that without the mirror that would not have been possible.
In conclusion, although the reading and the lecture are both about the hupothesis of the existence of a weapon called burning mirror,the three main points made in the reading are effectively challenged by the lecturer.
- Should students wear uniform at school. 60
- The author states about the criticized reasons of the turtle excluder device which is incorporated into the nets of shrimp-fishing boats. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter-argues that viewpoint trying to prove that these three criticized reasons do 76
- The author states the reasons that ethanol is not a good replacement for gasoline. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter- argues that viewpoint trying to prove that these reasons do not seem convincing.First and foremost, the writer mentions that the in 75
- The majority of parents give prizes to their children when they get good grades. Some people believe that it is a good way to encourage them to keep up the good work. While others argue that this is not a good idea to give money all of the time, so that 60
- Uniforms Vs non-Uniforms 68
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 109, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whereas” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...pon called ' burning mirror'. Whereas the author of the reading states that t...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 510, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e able to build despite the technology. The second argument the author gives is ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 80, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the experiment that was conducted shows that the ship could not burn fast as the...
^^
Line 9, column 133, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , the
...stence of a weapon called burning mirror,the three main points made in the reading a...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, nevertheless, really, second, so, whereas, in addition, in conclusion, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 12.0772626932 157% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1507.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 308.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89285714286 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47664712701 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493506493506 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 450.9 419.366225166 108% => 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: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.5688984014 49.2860985944 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.7222222222 110.228320801 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1111111111 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.16666666667 7.06452816374 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 4.45695364238 292% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.377224200826 0.272083759551 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.112849303735 0.0996497079465 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0756560201933 0.0662205650399 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.20180157544 0.162205337803 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0830720281733 0.0443174109184 187% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.2 13.3589403974 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.79 12.2367328918 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.56 8.42419426049 90% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.