A little over 2,200 years ago, the Roman navy attacked the Greek port city of Syracuse. According to some ancient historians, the Greeks defended themselves with an ingenious weapon called a “burning mirror”: a polished copper surface curved to focus the Sun’s rays onto Roman ships, causing them to catch fire. However, we have several reasons to suspect that the story of the burning mirror is just a myth and the Greeks of Syracuse never really built such a device.
The reading asserts that in 2200 years ago, the innovative weapon that Greek was equipped with, which was called 'burning mirror', against the Roman navy is just a myth and it is not true that Greek ever constructed such an apparatus. The lecture, however, finds this intention dubious and casts doubt on the reasons proposed by the reading passage.
First, the author argues that the ancient Greek was not technologically able to build such a big advanced device that would have had several meters with. In addition, it is far that in the ancient Greek had enough technological equipment to build a precise mirror. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that that big mirror was constructed from dozen polished copper. Therefore, constructing and assembling these small mirrors did not need advanced technology.
Furthermore, the reading passage holds the view that as an experiment has indicated, using the burning mirror, it takes a long time to set a ship, composing wood, on fire. So, this device was not applicable and useful. On the contrary, the professor underlines the fact that the Roman ships were not constructed only from wood. The ships had a sticky cover that could get fire in just seconds. Therefore, the ships did not need to be unmoved to get fire.
Finally, the reading claims that the Greek had already enough advanced weapon, like flaming arrows, so that they did not need to utilize a burning mirror. in contrast, the speaker dismisses this issue due to the fact that the Roman was acquainted with the weapon that Greek had. They could distinguish the equipment of flaming arrows from a far distance. But, the application of a burning mirror was surprising as the Roman was not familiar with this technology.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-17 | Shiimaaa | 80 | view |
| 2020-01-17 | Shiimaaa | 76 | view |
| 2020-01-09 | mashghanbar | 66 | view |
| 2020-01-08 | Opak Pulup | 78 | view |
| 2020-01-03 | nusybah | 83 | view |
- A little over 2,200 years ago, the Roman navy attacked the Greek port city of Syracuse. According to some ancient historians, the Greeks defended themselves with an ingenious weapon called a “burning mirror”: a polished copper surface curved to focus 80
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?Educating children is a more difficult task today than it was in the past because they spend so much time on cell phone, online games, and social networking Web site.Use specific reasons and examples t 83
- A huge marine mammal known as Steller’s sea cow once lived in the waters around Bering Island off the coast of Siberia. It was described in 1741 by Georg W. Steller, a naturalist who was among the first Europeans to see one. In 1768 the animal became ex 80
- Hail—pieces of ice that form and fall from clouds instead of snow or rain—has always been a problem for farmers in some areas of the United States. Hail pellets can fall with great force and destroy crops in the field. Over the last few decades, a met 73
- Do you agree or disagree that job has a greater effect on your overall happiness than social life? 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 352, Rule ID: NODT_DOZEN[1]
Message: Use simply: 'a dozen'.
Suggestion: a dozen
...at that big mirror was constructed from dozen polished copper. Therefore, constructin...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 156, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: In
...d not need to utilize a burning mirror. in contrast, the speaker dismisses this is...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, finally, first, furthermore, however, second, so, therefore, in addition, in contrast, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1453.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 292.0 270.72406181 108% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97602739726 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13376432452 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60778845226 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.520547945205 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 431.1 419.366225166 103% => 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: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.5143227643 49.2860985944 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.8666666667 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4666666667 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.93333333333 7.06452816374 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.19923013305 0.272083759551 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0648674303239 0.0996497079465 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0685831077511 0.0662205650399 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131781958389 0.162205337803 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.059952479019 0.0443174109184 135% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.