Debates as to the story of the burning mirror that the greek navy used to attack the roman
Recently, there has been a ton of debates as to the story of the burning mirror that the greek navy used to attack the roman. Most specifically, in regards to the reading, the writer puts forth the claim that the greeks never build such this device. In the listening, the lecturer is quick to point out there are serious flaws in the writer's claim. In fact, the professor believes that device was practical and addresses, in detail, the trouble with each point made in the reading test.
First and foremost, the author in the article states that the technology for manufacturing a large sheet of copper did not exist in that time. Some professionals, in the same field, however, stand in firm opposition to this claim. In the listening, for example, the speaker states they had a lot of flat polishing sheets that with them made a large mirror. He goes on to say that at that time it was useful.
One group of scholars represented by the writer think that the burning mirror would have taken a long time to set the wood ship on fire. Of course, though, not all the experts believe this claim is accurate. Again, the speaker, specifically, addresses this point when he states the ships were not just from wood. They are also, made from the waterproof pitch that could fire in a second.
Finally, the writer wraps his argument by positing that flaming arrows were so effective than a burning mirror. Not surprisingly, the lecturer takes issue with this claim by contending that burning rays are invisible by the enemy and they are much more effective than arrows. To sum up, both the writer and speaker hold conflicting views about a story of burning mirror
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-01-17 | Elhamsarvari | 66 | view |
| 2021-01-17 | Elhamsarvari | 60 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 146, Rule ID: IN_REGARD_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'regarding' or 'with regard to'.
Suggestion: regarding; with regard to
...to attack the roman. Most specifically, in regards to the reading, the writer puts forth the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, second, so, as to, for example, in fact, of course, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => 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: 1373.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 292.0 270.72406181 108% => OK
Chars per words: 4.70205479452 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13376432452 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43507118648 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 145.348785872 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.561643835616 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 412.2 419.366225166 98% => 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
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 2.5761589404 311% => 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: 29.8243748188 49.2860985944 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.5333333333 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4666666667 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.4 7.06452816374 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.245873408602 0.272083759551 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0845754183359 0.0996497079465 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.19123483008 0.0662205650399 289% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138525811858 0.162205337803 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.12047336235 0.0443174109184 272% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.4 13.3589403974 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 69.11 53.8541721854 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 11.0289183223 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.98 12.2367328918 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.44 8.42419426049 88% => OK
difficult_words: 53.0 63.6247240618 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.