TPO30(integrated)
In this set of materials, both the reading passage and the lecture discussed the existence of burning mirrors, which have been assumed to be used once the Roman navy attacked Greek port city. The reading firmly stated that the usage of the burning mirror is just a myth. However, the lecture repudiated what stated in the reading resting upon fallacious premises and provided three counterclaims proofing that burning mirror existed in reality.
Firstly, the reading claimed Greeks were not that advanced in technology to be able to produce the precise curvature needed for making the aforementioned weapon. The professor contradicted this point by acknowledging that as the weapon consisted of dozen of little copper sheets, it could be easily constructed in such a way that resembled a parabolic geometry. As this task was easier than we thought today, Greeks were successful to approach it.
Secondly, the reading argued that experiments showed that it took a long time for the wood of a ship to be burnt by burning balls. Notwithstanding, the professor highlighted that in that experiment the scientists had focused just on one material of the ships, in fact there was a sticky substance used in ancient time ships, named "pitch", that would catch fire in just a second. Consequently, the fire could spread through the wood gradually and in that case, they were effective.
Lastly, the article contended, as flaming arrows were a common weapon at that time usage of burning mirror was not reasonable. This seemed to be incorrect as explained in the lecture. The speaker articulated that as the Roman navy were familiar with flaming arrows weapons, they would easily defended themselves. Actually, with the usage of burning mirror they became surprised.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2015-09-04 | SarahAlsalihi | 80 | view |
2015-07-22 | nona88 | 80 | view |
- TPO26 (integrated) 90
- TPO 3 (independent) 60
- animals' bahavior 60
- integrated TOEFL writing 70
- The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and su 50
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 26 in 30
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 13 12
No. of Words: 286 250
No. of Characters: 1436 1200
No. of Different Words: 160 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.112 4.2
Average Word Length: 5.021 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.667 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 111 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 80 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 46 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 34 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.927 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.538 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.346 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.588 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.062 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4