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.
First, the ancient Greeks were not technologically advanced enough to make such a device. A mirror that would focus sunlight with sufficient intensity to set ships on fire would have to be several meters wide. Moreover, the mirror would have to have a very precise parabolic curvature (a curvature derived from a geometric shape known as the parabola). The technology for manufacturing a large sheet of copper with such specifications did not exist in the ancient world.
Second, the burning mirror would have taken a long time to set the ships on fire. In an experiment conducted to determine whether a burning mirror was feasible, a device concentrating the Sun's rays on a wooden object 30 meters away took ten minutes to set the object on fire; and during that time, the object had to be unmoving. It is unlikely that the Roman ships stayed perfectly still for that much time. Such a weapon would therefore have been very impractical and ineffective.
Third, a burning mirror does not seem like an improvement on a weapon that the Greeks already had: flaming arrows. Shooting at an enemy's ships with flaming arrows was a common way of setting the ships on fire. The burning mirror and flaming arrows would have been effective at about the same distance. So the Greeks had no reason to build a weapon like a burning mirror.
Recently, there has been a debate on burning mirror.More specifically, in regard to the reading passage the writer puts forth three reasons on how the burning mirror appear to be a misconception.In the listening passage, the lecturer is quick to point out that there are some serious flaws in the writers claim.In fact, he believes and addresses in detail the trouble with each point made in the reading text.
First and foremost, the author of the reading states that the Greeks do not have modern equipment to make such a mirror because it has to be a parabolic shape.Some professionals in the same field, however, stand in firm opposition to this claim.In the listening section for example, the speaker states that there is no need for single base copper to form a mirro, because individual copper can be arranged to form a parabolic shape.
One group of scholars, represented by the writer, thinks that it takes time for the mirror to set the ship on fire.Of course, though, not all experts in the field believe this is accurate.Again, the lecturer addresses the point when he states that roman boats are made of wood and other materials.Moreover, in a recent experiment peach is set ablaze for seconds therefore burning mirror is effective because fire spread more easily even when ship is moving.
Finally, the author brings his argument to a close by suggesting that the burning mirror does not appear to be owned by the Greek.Not surprisingly, the professor takes the issue by contending that soldiers have more interactions with flaming arrows.Also, only the burning mirror can be seen.
To sum up, both the writer and the professor hold conflicting views on the burning mirror folk tale.It is clear that they will have trouble having a common ground.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 53, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: More
...ere has been a debate on burning mirror.More specifically, in regard to the reading...
^^^^
Line 1, column 81, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ning mirror.More specifically, in regard to the reading passage the writer puts f...
^^
Line 1, column 197, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: In
...ing mirror appear to be a misconception.In the listening passage, the lecturer is ...
^^
Line 1, column 313, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: In
...some serious flaws in the writers claim.In fact, he believes and addresses in deta...
^^
Line 4, column 160, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Some
... because it has to be a parabolic shape.Some professionals in the same field, howeve...
^^^^
Line 4, column 246, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: In
... stand in firm opposition to this claim.In the listening section for example, the...
^^
Line 4, column 262, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...pposition to this claim.In the listening section for example, the speaker states...
^^
Line 4, column 288, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the listening section for example, the speaker states that there is no need for...
^^
Line 4, column 366, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... for single base copper to form a mirro, because individual copper can be arrang...
^^
Line 4, column 375, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...le base copper to form a mirro, because individual copper can be arranged to for...
^^
Line 7, column 62, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
..., represented by the writer, thinks that it takes time for the mirror to set the ...
^^
Line 7, column 117, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Of
... for the mirror to set the ship on fire.Of course, though, not all experts in the ...
^^
Line 7, column 190, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Again
...s in the field believe this is accurate.Again, the lecturer addresses the point when ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 299, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Moreover
...ts are made of wood and other materials.Moreover, in a recent experiment peach is set ab...
^^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 105, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... that the burning mirror does not appear to be owned by the Greek.Not surprisin...
^^
Line 10, column 112, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he burning mirror does not appear to be owned by the Greek.Not surprisingly, th...
^^
Line 10, column 126, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ror does not appear to be owned by the Greek.Not surprisingly, the professor ta...
^^
Line 10, column 134, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Not
... not appear to be owned by the Greek.Not surprisingly, the professor takes the i...
^^^
Line 10, column 253, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Also
...e more interactions with flaming arrows.Also, only the burning mirror can be seen. ...
^^^^
Line 12, column 101, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: It
...g views on the burning mirror folk tale.It is clear that they will have trouble h...
^^
Line 12, column 132, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...olk tale.It is clear that they will have trouble having a common ground.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, therefore, 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 : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1484.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 297.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99663299663 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79543616932 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545454545455 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 448.2 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 5.0 13.0662251656 38% => 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: 59.0 21.2450331126 278% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 109.875565983 49.2860985944 223% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 296.8 110.228320801 269% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 59.4 21.698381199 274% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 23.4 7.06452816374 331% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 21.0 4.19205298013 501% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.11627267005 0.272083759551 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0640678016386 0.0996497079465 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0253183333886 0.0662205650399 38% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0640678016386 0.162205337803 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0253183333886 0.0443174109184 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 31.8 13.3589403974 238% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: 20.05 53.8541721854 37% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 25.1 11.0289183223 228% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 12.61 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.02 8.42419426049 119% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 27.5 10.7273730684 256% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 25.6 10.498013245 244% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 26.0 11.2008830022 232% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
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.