the burning mirror
The reading and the lecture are about the burning mirror which it is a type of weapon used by the Greeks against the Roman navy. The author of the reading believes that the Greeks never made such devices and brings 3 reason to proves the statement. The lecturer challenges the statement made by author. She is of the opinion that none of these reason is correct.
First of all, the author claims that the Greeks were not technically capable to build such huge mirror in a very geometric shape. It is mentioned that a burning mirror should have several meters wide and had to have parabolic shape to be effective. This argument is challenged by the lecturer. She says that it was possible for Greeks because they didn’t need to build a single shape of copper, they put small flat pieces of copper together to create a parabolic shape of copper.
Secondly, the writer contends that set the fire on ships would take a long time, so the ships at the moment could move to another place. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by asserting that although fire the woods by the burning mirror take 10 min, but another material had been used in the body of ships like a sticky substance called pich used for sealing the woods together. This substance could be fired in a second by sun’s rays reflected by the mirror and it caused that the fire spread at the woods. He elaborates this by mentioning that the burning mirror was so effective as a defended weapon.
Third, it is stated in the article that the Greeks common weapon to defend themselves was flaming arrows, so they didn’t need to build new weapon like the burning mirror. The lecturer, on the other hand, posit that the burning mirror was capable than the flaming arrows because with using the flaming arrows the enemy could see the fire and could react to the fire, but in burning mirror method they just saw the mirror and they would be surprised when abruptly saw the fire on their ships.
- technology 60
- give credit to sports and social programs as well as science 76
- life nowadays is more convenient than before 68
- rules 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Television has destroyed communication among friends and family. Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion. 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 250, 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.
...rings 3 reason to proves the statement. The lecturer challenges the statement made ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, second, secondly, so, third, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 15.1003584229 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 9.8082437276 92% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 13.8261648746 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.0286738351 118% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 43.0788530466 72% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 52.1666666667 84% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.0752688172 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1618.0 1977.66487455 82% => OK
No of words: 348.0 407.700716846 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.64942528736 4.8611393121 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31911543099 4.48103885553 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.26977299913 2.67179642975 85% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 212.727598566 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.488505747126 0.524837075471 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 493.2 618.680645161 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.51630824373 92% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 9.59856630824 83% => OK
Article: 7.0 3.08781362007 227% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 3.51792114695 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.86738351254 107% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.94265232975 20% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 20.6003584229 68% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 24.0 20.1344086022 119% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.8914998807 48.9658058833 147% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.571428571 100.406767564 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8571428571 20.6045352989 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.78571428571 5.45110844103 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 11.8709677419 51% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.85842293907 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.88709677419 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.363894163052 0.236089414692 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.127949736974 0.076458572812 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.12808185631 0.0737576698707 174% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.224762785801 0.150856017488 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0849319958999 0.0645574589148 132% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 11.7677419355 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 64.04 58.1214874552 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 10.1575268817 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.99 10.9000537634 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.69 8.01818996416 96% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 86.8835125448 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.002688172 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.0537634409 115% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 10.247311828 78% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
We are expecting: No. of Words: 350 while No. of Different Words: 200
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 61.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.5 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.