TPO32-integrated writing
The reading author argues that there is not enough compelling evidence to support the claim that Greeks defeated Romans in an army by utilizing an apparatus called "burning mirror". The lecturer, however, believes that the reading's arguments are nothing more than superficial and specious. She refutes all the arguments presented in the reading passage according to the following reasons.
First, the reading's author is of the opinion that the Greeks did not have enough technology to build the burning mirrors. He points out that the elaborate parabolic structure of the mirrors leads one to render them impossible. Conversely, the lecturer underlines the fact that Greek mathematicians knew a lot about parabolic surfaces. So they could have devised these apparatuses. Moreover, the huge surfaces of the mirrors were made of several pieces of copper, not only one great piece.
Second, the author explains that the process of burning a stationary target will not last less than ten minutes; so, it is far from reality to presume that the Greeks burnt the moving Romans' ships. Nevertheless, the lecture highlights the fact that the ships were not made exclusively of wood. Another substance called pitch was also a part of the ship's outer body to make it water proof. The pitch can catch fire in seconds. So, it is possible to believe that the moving Roman ships were caught fire in quite a small time.
Third, the reading contends that since Romans had previously developed other efficient weapons such as flaming arrows, there is no reason to believe that instead of utilizing them, they used burning mirrors. The lecturer explains that since the Romans were well aware of the flaming arrows, the Greeks decided to attack them with burning mirrors which were unexpected to them.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 164, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...an army by utilizing an apparatus called apos;burning mirror apos;. The lecturer,...
^^
Line 5, column 389, Rule ID: EN_COMPOUNDS
Message: This word is normally spelled as one.
Suggestion: waterproof
...f the ship apos;s outer body to make it water proof. The pitch can catch fire in seconds. S...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, first, however, moreover, nevertheless, second, so, third, well, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 7.30242825607 14% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1527.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 297.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14141414141 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50183077542 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.575757575758 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 468.9 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => 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: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.8087899427 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.8 110.228320801 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8 21.698381199 91% => 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 : 0.0 4.33554083885 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.114534055095 0.272083759551 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0419000047906 0.0996497079465 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0382707558841 0.0662205650399 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0701745450792 0.162205337803 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0370688155591 0.0443174109184 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.