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 rally 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 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.
the teading passage claims that the "burning mirror" were not a useful and efficent device for war with roman navy , but the lecture cast doubt om this idea and says that this device was very unpredictable and usful.
while the reading passage claims that the Greecs were not enough advanced to make such a divice, the speaker says that it was possible technoligically for them to cereat such thing because thay have been could make a lot of deffrent instrument and because thay had some knouledge about minnor so thay must be able to design such devices.
secondly,the reason that the passages explains about the woody structure of Romans ships made it impossible that the mirror could concentrate the sun's rays to the wood and burned that, is opposed by the speaker that claims that there have been some material at the ships which they was named "petche " and they could be burnt at a second so it was not necessarly
correct that the mirrors could not burnt the ships.
finally speaker oppose of the passage says that efficiently of the "flaiming arrow" was doubly,because Roman solders known this method and when Greeks start to shooting them, they was ready to protect themselves from the fire but when they prepare the mirrors the Romans did not know what was that subject so the speaker claims that that devise was very efficient for Greeks
in short speaker provides some arguments and evidence to support the perspective that the "burning mirror " was very emperical and efficient weopen for Greeks.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
the teading passage claims that the 'b...
^^^
Line 1, column 125, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
... efficent device for war with roman navy , but the lecture cast doubt om this idea...
^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: While
...ce was very unpredictable and usful. while the reading passage claims that the Gre...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Secondly
...must be able to design such devices. secondly,the reason that the passages explains a...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 9, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , the
...able to design such devices. secondly,the reason that the passages explains about...
^^^^
Line 5, column 373, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rnt at a second so it was not necessarly correct that the mirrors could not burnt...
^^^^
Line 6, column 37, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'burn'
Suggestion: burn
...y correct that the mirrors could not burnt the ships. finally speaker oppose of...
^^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Finally
...e mirrors could not burnt the ships. finally speaker oppose of the passage says that...
^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: finally,
...e mirrors could not burnt the ships. finally speaker oppose of the passage says that...
^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 105, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , because
...he 'flaiming arrow' was doubly,because Roman solders known this method and whe...
^^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: In
...devise was very efficient for Greeks in short speaker provides some arguments a...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, second, secondly, so, while, in short
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 19.0 30.3222958057 63% => 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: 1303.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 259.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03088803089 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01166760082 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60039539552 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 145.348785872 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.532818532819 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 387.9 419.366225166 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.23620309051 36% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 4.0 13.0662251656 31% => 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: 64.0 21.2450331126 301% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 121.367983834 49.2860985944 246% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 325.75 110.228320801 296% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 64.75 21.698381199 298% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 12.75 7.06452816374 180% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.09492273731 147% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 11.0 4.19205298013 262% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.16563472129 0.272083759551 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10479421227 0.0996497079465 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0594026623529 0.0662205650399 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0947553275584 0.162205337803 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0524945409543 0.0443174109184 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 34.6 13.3589403974 259% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: 14.98 53.8541721854 28% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 5.55761589404 234% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 27.1 11.0289183223 246% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 12.78 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.1 8.42419426049 120% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 63.6247240618 85% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 27.5 10.7273730684 256% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 27.6 10.498013245 263% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 28.0 11.2008830022 250% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.