TPO30_Q1 (listen twice)
The article claims that the Greeks never really built a burning mirror and it is just a myth and provides three reason of support. However the professor explains that the claims which the reading states, are not convincing. He refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading passage claims that the ancient Greek was not technologically advanced enough to build the burning mirror. The professor refutes this point by saying that manufacturing of the burning mirror do not need a large sheet of copper. According to the professor, flat pieces of copper could arrange to a large mirror, he also states that it could make by assembling small mirror.
Second, the article posits that the burning mirror would have taken a long time to burn a ship especially while it’s moving. However, the professor says that the author assumes that it was just wood on fire although the ships was not just made of wood. Other materials which were fired quickly are existed. For example 'Peach' catch fire in seconds even the ship was moving.
Third, the reading says that flaming arrows which was as effective at about the same distance as the burning mirror, was a common way of setting the ships on fire. The professor opposes this point by explaining that Roman soldier were familiar with the flaming arrows but by using burning mirror they couldn't see who raised fire they just saw the mirror, so the burning mirror was more effective
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-07-04 | farzanehoseini1990 | 78 | view |
- TPO30_Q1 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Parents do not understand their children as much as well as did 50 years ago. 73
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Parents do not understand their children as much as well as did 50 years ago. (rewrite) 73
- teenagers have jobs while they are still student agree or disagree 95
- tpo40-Q1-rewrite 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 132, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...h and provides three reason of support. However the professor explains that the claims ...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 301, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...arrows but by using burning mirror they couldnt see who raised fire they just saw the m...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, really, second, so, third, while, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1193.0 1373.03311258 87% => OK
No of words: 245.0 270.72406181 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.8693877551 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.95632099841 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.3136413457 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 145.348785872 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.551020408163 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 352.8 419.366225166 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.8494957068 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.4166666667 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4166666667 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 7.06452816374 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => 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: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.428002440547 0.272083759551 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.15435079859 0.0996497079465 155% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105270422664 0.0662205650399 159% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.251627195392 0.162205337803 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0810960045851 0.0443174109184 183% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 68.1 53.8541721854 126% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.2367328918 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.85 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 50.0 63.6247240618 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.