TPO-30
The reading and the lecture are both about the burning mirror. It is a weapon used to set a fire. The author of the reading believes that the ancient Greek would not have used the device. He provides three reasons to support his argument. The lecture cast doubt on the argument made in the article. He thinks that the burning mirror had been used by the ancient Greek as a weapon.
First, the author of the reading states that the Greeks were not the technologically advanced enough to make such device. He suggests that the mirror would have to be wide and in parabolic curvature for the generation of the fire. So, it is unlikely to produce the device. This point is challenged by the lecture. He suggests that the small pieces of the mirror can be gathered and wide mirror can be prepared easily. Therefore, It is possible the Greek had used the burning mirror.
Second, the author suggests that the burning mirror would have taken longer to set the fire in the ships. He also suggests that the ships need to be unmovable for ten minutes to set the fire. It is unplausible for ships to be not moved in the water. Therefore, burning mirror had not used. The lecture refutes this idea. He suggests that the burning mirror took 10 minutes for the wood to get burn, but there were other materials used for the manufacturing of the ships. The sticky substance used to join the wood pieces were burned within a second. It could then burn the wood. Therefore, It is likely that ancient Greeks had used the equipment.
Third, the author states that the flaming arrow, similar to the purpose of the burning fire would have also used by the Greeks. He means to say that both would have been effective at the same distance. Hence, the Greek had no reason to build the weapon like a lighted mirror. However, the lecture, on the other hand, suggests that the Flaming arrow would visible to the people from a distance but burning mirror could not be identified by the people. Therefore, it would have been used as an effective tool
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-26 | Somayya | 80 | view |
| 2020-01-17 | Shiimaaa | 76 | view |
| 2020-01-09 | mashghanbar | 66 | view |
| 2019-10-25 | mahbod | 70 | view |
| 2019-10-06 | hanieh.azad | 70 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, second, so, then, therefore, third, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1662.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 364.0 270.72406181 134% => OK
Chars per words: 4.56593406593 5.08290768461 90% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36792674256 4.04702891845 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.28486221439 2.5805825403 89% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 145.348785872 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.406593406593 0.540411800872 75% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 520.2 419.366225166 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 15.0 3.25607064018 461% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 13.0662251656 199% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.5335219333 49.2860985944 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 63.9230769231 110.228320801 58% => More chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 14.0 21.698381199 65% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.5 7.06452816374 50% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.27373068433 234% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.496397410914 0.272083759551 182% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.151886248124 0.0996497079465 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0930712949553 0.0662205650399 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.347104888978 0.162205337803 214% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0372913187222 0.0443174109184 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 7.1 13.3589403974 53% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 74.19 53.8541721854 138% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.4 11.0289183223 58% => Flesch kincaid grade is low.
coleman_liau_index: 8.63 12.2367328918 71% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.93 8.42419426049 82% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 7.0 11.2008830022 62% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 65.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.5 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.