According to the given set of the reading passage, it is the author's conviction that Greek army did not use the "burning mirror", which was a significantly improved weapon with the pure polished copper surface, against Roman's attack owing to the several highlighted reasons. On the contrary, the lecturer casts doubt on this claim and repudiates each of the author's specific points by providing several counter-arguments that are as follows:
First of all, the reading holds the view that the Greeks did not have a sufficient technology to fabricate this kind of weapon at that time. However, the lecturer finds this reason unconvincing and asserts that results of an experiment demonstrated that it was not necessary to form a single large mirror. In other Words, by the assistance of mathematicians, it might have been possible to manufacture this weapon by dozens of small pieces and combine all of them to form a wide one.
Secondly, although the author posits that based on an experiment, this weapon needs a huge amount of time to burn the fixed wood, the lecturer rejects this justification by saying that Romans ships were made not only with the wood. Their ships consisted other materials such a specific one named Pitch, which was used between the wood and other spaces in order to intensify the resistance of ships against water, was a highly sensitive material to be burned in merely a few seconds. As a result, by burning of this material, the fire was able to spread in the woods and destroy Roman's ships.
As the last point to emphasize the reading claim, the author points out that Greeks were used flaming arrows and thus the improvement of "burning mirror" is implausible. Yet again, the lecturer states on the opposite side by explaining that the main reason for utilizing of this weapon by Greeks was that Romans could not see the fire setting directly by their own eyes and setting the fire by this mirror was so surprising and effective way to ruin the Roman ships. All in all, based on the arguments above, the author's reasons seem to be unbelievable.
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement The government and corporation should share all their scientific discoveries with other countries in the world Please use specific details and examples to support your opinion 77
- TPO-33 - Integrated Writing Task Carved stone balls are a curious type of artifact found at a number of locations in Scotland. They date from the late Neolithic period, around 4,000 years ago. They are round in shape; they were carved from several types o 83
- TPO-26 - Integrated Writing Task The zebra mussel, a freshwater shellfish native to Eastern Europe, has long been spreading out from its original habitats and has now reached parts of North America. There are reasons to believe that this invasion cannot b 80
- TPO-02 - Integrated Writing Task In many organizations, perhaps the best way to approach certain new projects is to assemble a group of people into a team. Having a team of people attack a project offers several advantages. First of all, a group of people 80
- TPO-23 - Integrated Writing Task Populations of the yellow cedar, a species of tree that is common in northwestern North America, have been steadily declining for more than a century now, since about 1880. Scientists have advanced several hypotheses expla 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 62, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...n set of the reading passage, it is the authors conviction that Greek army did not use ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, second, secondly, so, thus, kind of, as a result, first of all, in other words, 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: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 30.3222958057 178% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1751.0 1373.03311258 128% => OK
No of words: 355.0 270.72406181 131% => OK
Chars per words: 4.9323943662 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34067318298 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78017751706 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 145.348785872 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.535211267606 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 536.4 419.366225166 128% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 35.0 21.2450331126 165% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 74.0516711493 49.2860985944 150% => OK
Chars per sentence: 175.1 110.228320801 159% => OK
Words per sentence: 35.5 21.698381199 164% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.5 7.06452816374 163% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
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: 0.329287538981 0.272083759551 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.127224728989 0.0996497079465 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0516305213341 0.0662205650399 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.19842675922 0.162205337803 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0290395299429 0.0443174109184 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.5 13.3589403974 146% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.41 53.8541721854 82% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 11.0289183223 143% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.91 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 10.7273730684 177% => OK
gunning_fog: 16.0 10.498013245 152% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.2008830022 143% => 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.