The lecture and reading both discuss burning mirror used on to roman ship to catch fire. The author claims that Greeks of Syracuse not depend on the such a device and according to the story of burning mirror was just a myth not true. The lecturer cast doubt to certain points made in the article. He says that author's claims are unconvincing.
First of all, the author implies that no any advance technology builds such a device and lack of technology unable to made large manufacturing copper sheet with parabolic curvature. This point challenged by the lecturer. He mentions that copper sheet made by number of pieces flat copper and ancient people had knowledge about parabolic curvature. The knowledge of properties and made large sheet of copper it is possible to made the device.
Secondly, the author emphasizes that long time took for set burning mirror and ship cannot stay perfectly for large time. The lecturer rebuts this argument. He explains that burning mirror took ten minute to set on wood. The roman ship made not only wood but also made with other materials. The substance called pitch helped to stick to the wood and burning mirror. Pitch helps to catch fire easily by wood.
Lastly, the author states that flaming arrows as similar works a burning mirror, so no reasons to build burning mirror. The lecturer, in contrast, points out that flaming arrow cannot see the behind image of sea but burning mirror magically starts fires. It is not happened in flaming arrow. So, burning mirror more effective than flaming arrow.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 235, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...urning mirror was just a myth not true. The lecturer cast doubt to certain points m...
^^^
Line 2, column 39, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
... First of all, the author implies that no any advance technology builds such a de...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, lastly, second, secondly, so, in contrast, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 10.4613686534 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1285.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 262.0 270.72406181 97% => OK
Chars per words: 4.90458015267 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02323427807 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.31889312192 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 141.0 145.348785872 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538167938931 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 391.5 419.366225166 93% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => 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: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.4659994715 49.2860985944 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 71.3888888889 110.228320801 65% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.5555555556 21.698381199 67% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.05555555556 7.06452816374 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
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 : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.377194025757 0.272083759551 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.118358100996 0.0996497079465 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0941815028896 0.0662205650399 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.220361888175 0.162205337803 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0655019957082 0.0443174109184 148% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.9 13.3589403974 67% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.73 53.8541721854 122% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 11.0289183223 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.55 12.2367328918 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.53 8.42419426049 89% => OK
difficult_words: 53.0 63.6247240618 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.